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

Passages in the Defence lacking sufficient particularity, relevance, or connection to the pleaded meanings, or which offend the repetition or conduct rules, must be struck out. However, allegations of general bad reputation and certain particulars of justification that are sufficiently pleaded or relevant are allowed to stand.

Citation: [2011] EWHC 272
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, Justification Defence, Pleading Standards, Mitigation of Damages, General Bad Reputation

Defamation Media Law Libel Justification Defence Pleading Standards Mitigation of Damages General Bad Reputation

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

David Hunt

Claimant

Evening Standard Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

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 as marked; no other parts struck out; remainder of application dismissed