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, nor did it impute any political philosophy to them. The innuendo claim was dependent on an unsustainable premise. The Particulars of Claim in negligent misstatement were deficient and there was no reason to believe the Claimants could cure the defects. Both the defamation and negligent misstatement claims were struck out.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1276 (QB)
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 of Words) 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 of Words) 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 Do the words bear a defamatory meaning at common law?
  3. 3 Is the innuendo meaning pleaded sustainable?

Ratio Decidendi

The press release did not bear the natural and ordinary meaning alleged by the Claimants, nor did it impute any political philosophy to them. The innuendo claim was dependent on an unsustainable premise. The Particulars of Claim in negligent misstatement were deficient and there was no reason to believe the Claimants could cure the defects. Both the defamation and negligent misstatement claims were struck out.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out in its entirety

Orders

  • The claim in defamation is struck out.
  • The claim in negligent misstatement is struck out.