Murray v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Murray v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Permission to read a unilateral statement in open court should be granted unless there is sufficient reason to refuse, and the court should not allow the defendant to control the content of the claimant's statement or require oral hearings as a matter of course, as this would undermine the settlement process envisaged by the Defamation Act 1996 and the overriding objective of the CPR.

Parties
Claimant: Joanne Kathleen Murray; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Application for Permission to Read a Unilateral Statement in Open Court Following Acceptance of Offer of Amends
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Offer of Amends, Unilateral Statement in Open Court, Damages, Freedom of Expression
Defamation Civil Procedure Offer of Amends Unilateral Statement in Open Court Damages Freedom of Expression

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joanne Kathleen Murray

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Application for Permission to Read a Unilateral Statement in Open Court Following Acceptance of Offer of Amends

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted permission to read a unilateral statement in open court after accepting an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to an oral hearing to oppose the claimant's application for a unilateral statement
  3. 3 Scope of matters that may be included in a unilateral statement in open court

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to read a unilateral statement in open court should be granted unless there is sufficient reason to refuse, and the court should not allow the defendant to control the content of the claimant's statement or require oral hearings as a matter of course, as this would undermine the settlement process envisaged by the Defamation Act 1996 and the overriding objective of the CPR.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Permission granted to the claimant to read the unilateral statement in open court in the form submitted with her application notice.
  • Matter determined on paper; no oral hearing directed.