Lait v Evening Standard Ltd [2010] EWHC 3239 (QB) (09 December 2010)

Lait v Evening Standard Ltd [2010] EWHC 3239 (QB) (09 December 2010)

The defence of fair comment (honest comment) is bound to succeed because, notwithstanding the factual error regarding the £25,000 repayment, the article's core criticism—that the Claimant took advantage of the expenses system and thus could legitimately provoke public anger by opposing reforms—is a view that could honestly be held by members of the public. The defamatory sting survives on facts that are true, and the comment falls within the margin of robust fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3239
Parties
Claimant: Jacqui Lait; Defendant: Evening Standard Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Summary Judgment Applications by Both Parties
Outcome
Summary judgment for the Defendant; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Fair Comment, Justification, Parliamentary Expenses, Defamatory Meaning, Public Interest
Defamation Media Law Fair Comment Justification Parliamentary Expenses Defamatory Meaning Public Interest

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqui Lait

Claimant

Evening Standard Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Summary Judgment Applications by Both Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published by the Defendant was defamatory of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the defences of justification and/or fair comment (honest comment) are bound to fail or succeed
  3. 3 Whether the article's statements about the Claimant's expenses and motives were fact or comment

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of fair comment (honest comment) is bound to succeed because, notwithstanding the factual error regarding the £25,000 repayment, the article's core criticism—that the Claimant took advantage of the expenses system and thus could legitimately provoke public anger by opposing reforms—is a view that could honestly be held by members of the public. The defamatory sting survives on facts that are true, and the comment falls within the margin of robust fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the Defendant; claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; defence of fair comment succeeds
  • No trial on the merits required unless appealed