Euromoney Institutional Investor Plc v Aviation News Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 1505 (QB) (12 June 2013)

Euromoney Institutional Investor Plc v Aviation News Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 1505 (QB) (12 June 2013)

The words complained of in the Email and Advertisement are not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning of the claimants, nor are they capable of supporting a claim in malicious falsehood as they are statements of opinion or value judgment, not fact. The claims in both defamation and malicious falsehood are struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and the amendments are refused as they have no real prospect of success. The claims are also an abuse of process as there is no real or substantial tort to be tried.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1505
Parties
Claimant: Euromoney Institutional Investor Plc; Defendant: Aviation News Ltd; Defendant: Philip Tozer-Pennington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation/malicious Falsehood / Application for Permission to Amend Claim and to Strike Out Original Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out; permission to amend refused
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Amendment of Pleadings, Corporate Claimants, Reference in Defamation, Meaning in Defamation, Malice, Special Damage, Comparative Advertising, Abuse of Process
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Amendment of Pleadings Corporate Claimants Reference in Defamation +5 more

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 7 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Euromoney Institutional Investor Plc

Claimant

Aviation News Ltd

Defendant

Philip Tozer-Pennington

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation/malicious Falsehood / Application for Permission to Amend Claim and to Strike Out Original Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning of the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the words are capable of supporting a claim in malicious falsehood
  3. 3 Whether the claimants have standing to sue, particularly as corporate entities

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of in the Email and Advertisement are not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning of the claimants, nor are they capable of supporting a claim in malicious falsehood as they are statements of opinion or value judgment, not fact. The claims in both defamation and malicious falsehood are struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and the amendments are refused as they have no real prospect of success. The claims are also an abuse of process as there is no real or substantial tort to be tried.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; permission to amend refused

Orders

  • Original claim struck out under CPR r.3.4(2)(a)
  • Permission to amend claim form and particulars of claim refused