Cambridge v Makin

The agreed substitute wording for the meaning of the email is preferable to the original judge's formulation and closely reflects the meaning contended for by Ms Cambridge; the appeal is allowed to substitute the wording, and costs are ordered as respondent's costs in the case.

Parties: Appellant: Cambridge; Respondent: Makin
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 28 October 2010
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pre Trial Ruling on Meaning in Libel Action
Outcome: appeal allowed in part; substitute wording for meaning; costs as respondent's costs in the case
Legal Topics: Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Words, Costs, Qualified Privilege

Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Meaning of Defamatory Words Costs Qualified Privilege

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Cambridge

Appellant

Makin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pre Trial Ruling on Meaning in Libel Action

Legal Issues

1 Whether the words in the email bear a defamatory meaning
2 Appropriate formulation of the meaning for trial
3 Costs of the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part; substitute wording for meaning; costs as respondent's costs in the case

Orders

Appeal allowed to the extent of substituting agreed wording for meaning of the email.
Costs ordered as respondent's costs in the case.