Ward v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Ward v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Permission is granted for the majority of the claimant's proposed amendments to the Particulars of Claim, including the expanded case on malice against Mr Wright and Mr Wellington, as the pleaded case is clear, relevant, and not disproportionate. However, permission is refused for amendments that are irrelevant, prejudicial, or not properly particularised, including allegations against individuals not responsible for publication, certain references to the Leveson Inquiry, and the claim for special damages as originally pleaded. The claim for damages is permitted in a general form as agreed between the parties. The proper defendant is Associated Newspapers Limited, and the statement of...

Parties
Claimant: Michael Ward; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (permission to Amend Pleadings)
Outcome
Permission to amend granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Malicious Falsehood, Qualified Privilege, Pleading Amendments, Malice, Leveson Inquiry, Damages
Defamation Media Law Malicious Falsehood Qualified Privilege Pleading Amendments Malice Leveson Inquiry Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ward

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (permission to Amend Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to plead further particulars of malice and related matters
  2. 2 Whether certain paragraphs and allegations are relevant, proportionate, and properly pleaded
  3. 3 Whether allegations against individuals not responsible for publication are admissible

Ratio Decidendi

Permission is granted for the majority of the claimant's proposed amendments to the Particulars of Claim, including the expanded case on malice against Mr Wright and Mr Wellington, as the pleaded case is clear, relevant, and not disproportionate. However, permission is refused for amendments that are irrelevant, prejudicial, or not properly particularised, including allegations against individuals not responsible for publication, certain references to the Leveson Inquiry, and the claim for special damages as originally pleaded. The claim for damages is permitted in a general form as agreed between the parties. The proper defendant is Associated Newspapers Limited, and the statement of...

Court Disposition

Permission to amend granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Permission granted for amendments to paragraphs 44-46, 48, 64-65, 189-190, 196, 202, 236, 272-273 (malice)
  • Permission refused for amendments to paragraphs 58-59 (irrelevant allegations against others)