BrewDog Plc & Anor v Frank Public Relations Ltd

BrewDog Plc & Anor v Frank Public Relations Ltd

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 unsustainable as it depended on a meaning not found. The negligent misstatement claim was inadequately pleaded, lacking particulars of duty, breach, and loss. There was no reasonable ground for the claims to proceed and no realistic prospect of amendment curing the deficiencies. Both claims were struck out.

Parties
Claimant: BrewDog plc; Claimant: BrewDog Retail Ltd; Defendant: Frank Public Relations Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Negligent Misstatement / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Meaning and Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out in its entirety
Legal Topics
Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Innuendo in Defamation, Negligent Misstatement, Strike Out Applications, Pleading Requirements
Defamation Tort Law Civil Procedure Meaning of Defamatory Statements Innuendo in Defamation Negligent Misstatement Strike Out Applications Pleading Requirements

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BrewDog plc

Claimant

BrewDog Retail Ltd

Claimant

Frank Public Relations Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Negligent Misstatement / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Meaning and Application to Strike Out Claim

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 unsustainable as it depended on a meaning not found. The negligent misstatement claim was inadequately pleaded, lacking particulars of duty, breach, and loss. There was no reasonable ground for the claims to proceed and no realistic prospect of amendment curing the deficiencies. 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