Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism

Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism

The defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the honest opinion defence for the libel claims because, on the admitted facts, an honest person could have held the opinions expressed. The malice pleas were defective as they did not provide particulars probative of dishonesty or lack of belief in the opinions expressed. The data protection and misuse of private information claims were not struck out as abusive because there was insufficient evidence that their continued litigation would be disproportionate.

Parties
Claimant: Tony Greenstein; Defendant: Campaign Against Antisemitism
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation, Data Protection, Misuse of Private Information / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part; malice pleas struck out; part of data protection claim struck out; remainder of data protection and privacy claims to proceed.
Legal Topics
Honest Opinion Defence, Malice Pleading, Jameel Abuse of Process, Rehabilitation of Offenders, Summary Judgment, Misuse of Private Information
Defamation Data Protection Privacy Honest Opinion Defence Malice Pleading Jameel Abuse of Process Rehabilitation of Offenders Summary Judgment +1 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Greenstein

Claimant

Campaign Against Antisemitism

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation, Data Protection, Misuse of Private Information / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the honest opinion defence for the libel claims
  2. 2 Whether the malice pleas should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether the data protection and misuse of private information claims should be struck out as an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the honest opinion defence for the libel claims because, on the admitted facts, an honest person could have held the opinions expressed. The malice pleas were defective as they did not provide particulars probative of dishonesty or lack of belief in the opinions expressed. The data protection and misuse of private information claims were not struck out as abusive because there was insufficient evidence that their continued litigation would be disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part; malice pleas struck out; part of data protection claim struck out; remainder of data protection and privacy claims to proceed.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the defendant on the honest opinion defences to the libel claims
  • Malice pleas at paragraphs 22, 23, 25 and 26 of the amended reply struck out