Miah v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2018] EWHC 1054 (QB) (08 May 2018)

Miah v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2018] EWHC 1054 (QB) (08 May 2018)

Parts of the Defence relying on third party opinions, the fact of investigation, or post-publication events are irrelevant and inadmissible to a Chase Level 2 defence and must be struck out. Expert evidence should be confined to explaining the QOF system, not the claimant's compliance with it.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1054
Parties
Claimant: Dr Rina Miah; Defendant: British Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Libel, Misuse of Private Information, and Breach of Data Protection Act 1998 / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence
Outcome
Application granted in substantial part; specified paragraphs of the Defence struck out.
Legal Topics
Libel, Defence of Truth, Chase Level 2 Meaning, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection Act 1998, Pleading Standards, Expert Evidence
Defamation Media Law Data Protection Privacy Libel Defence of Truth Chase Level 2 Meaning Misuse of Private Information +3 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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Rina Miah

Claimant

British Broadcasting Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel, Misuse of Private Information, and Breach of Data Protection Act 1998 / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the BBC's Defence of truth in a libel claim should be struck out as irrelevant or inadmissible under established defamation pleading principles
  2. 2 Whether expert evidence should address the claimant's compliance with the QOF system

Ratio Decidendi

Parts of the Defence relying on third party opinions, the fact of investigation, or post-publication events are irrelevant and inadmissible to a Chase Level 2 defence and must be struck out. Expert evidence should be confined to explaining the QOF system, not the claimant's compliance with it.

Court Disposition

Application granted in substantial part; specified paragraphs of the Defence struck out.

Orders

  • Strike out of paragraphs 12.24, 12.27, 12.28 (second sentence), 12.29–12.31, 12.35, 12.38, 12.41, 12.42 (fourth and subsequent sentences), 12.43, 12.47, 12.48 (final sentence), 12.50–12.52, 12.53–12.60, 13.2(2), 13.2(4), 13.2(5), and 14 of the Defence.
  • Expert evidence limited to explaining the QOF system, not the claimant's compliance.