Cruise & Anor v Express Newspapers Plc & Anor [1998] EWCA Civ 1269 (22 July 1998)

Cruise & Anor v Express Newspapers Plc & Anor [1998] EWCA Civ 1269 (22 July 1998)

The Court held that the words complained of were capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded by the plaintiffs, including the meaning previously struck out by the judge. The context did not so clearly neutralise the sting as to justify striking out the claims. On the justification/fair comment issue, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 1269
Parties
Respondent: Tom Cruise; Respondent: Nicole Kidman; Appellant: Express Newspapers Plc; Appellant: Richard Addis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Pleading Practice, Bane and Antidote, Justification, Fair Comment, Strike Out Applications
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Pleading Practice Bane and Antidote Justification Fair Comment +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom Cruise

Respondent

Nicole Kidman

Respondent

Express Newspapers Plc

Appellant

Richard Addis

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded by the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the context of the publication (bane and antidote) removes the defamatory sting.
  3. 3 Whether defendants can plead justification/fair comment for separate and distinct stings not complained of by the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the words complained of were capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded by the plaintiffs, including the meaning previously struck out by the judge. The context did not so clearly neutralise the sting as to justify striking out the claims. On the justification/fair comment issue, the Court held that defendants cannot justify or comment on a separate and distinct sting not complained of by the plaintiffs, even if the whole article is pleaded. The relevant paragraphs of the defence were properly struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Restoration of paragraph 4.1 to the plaintiffs' pleadings.
  • Strike-out of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the defence (justification and fair comment) affirmed.