BrewDog Plc & Anor v Frank Public Relations Ltd [2020] EWHC 1276 (QB) (20 May 2020)

BrewDog Plc & Anor v Frank Public Relations Ltd [2020] EWHC 1276 (QB) (20 May 2020)

The press release did not bear the natural and ordinary meaning alleged by the Claimants or say anything about their political philosophy. The pleaded innuendo was dependent on an unsustainable premise. The Particulars of Claim failed to disclose reasonable grounds for claims in defamation and negligent misstatement, and deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Both claims were struck out.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1276
Parties
Claimant: BrewDog plc; Claimant: BrewDog Retail Ltd; Defendant: Frank Public Relations Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2020
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue (meaning) and Strike Out Application
Outcome
Claim struck out in its entirety
Legal Topics
Libel, Negligent Misstatement, Pleading Requirements, Strike Out Applications
Defamation Tort Libel Negligent Misstatement Pleading Requirements Strike Out Applications

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

BrewDog plc

Claimant

BrewDog Retail Ltd

Claimant

Frank Public Relations Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue (meaning) and Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in the press release?
  2. 2 Is the pleaded innuendo meaning sustainable?
  3. 3 Do the Particulars of Claim disclose reasonable grounds for bringing claims in defamation and negligent misstatement?

Ratio Decidendi

The press release did not bear the natural and ordinary meaning alleged by the Claimants or say anything about their political philosophy. The pleaded innuendo was dependent on an unsustainable premise. The Particulars of Claim failed to disclose reasonable grounds for claims in defamation and negligent misstatement, and deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Both claims were struck out.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out in its entirety

Orders

  • Claim in defamation struck out
  • Claim in negligent misstatement struck out