Hunt v Evening Standard Ltd [2011] EWHC 272 (QB) (18 February 2011)

Hunt v Evening Standard Ltd [2011] EWHC 272 (QB) (18 February 2011)

Passages in the Defence lacking sufficient particularity, relevance, or proper pleading—specifically those offending the repetition and conduct rules—should be struck out. However, allegations of general bad reputation and certain particulars of justification may remain if they are sufficiently pleaded or directly relevant.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 272 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: David Hunt; Defendant: Evening Standard Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence
Outcome
Application partly allowed, partly dismissed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Pleading Justification, Mitigation of Damages, General Bad Reputation, Striking Out Pleadings
Defamation Media Law Libel Pleading Justification Mitigation of Damages General Bad Reputation Striking Out Pleadings

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Hunt

Claimant

Evening Standard Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain passages of the Defence should be struck out as irrelevant or lacking particularity under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or (b)
  2. 2 Whether particulars of justification and general bad reputation are sufficiently pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

Passages in the Defence lacking sufficient particularity, relevance, or proper pleading—specifically those offending the repetition and conduct rules—should be struck out. However, allegations of general bad reputation and certain particulars of justification may remain if they are sufficiently pleaded or directly relevant.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed, partly dismissed.

Orders

  • Strike out those parts of paragraphs 6.1, 6.2, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.11 (only the words '(and living off immoral earnings)'), and 6.12 of the Defence.
  • No other parts of the Defence to be struck out.