McGrath v Independent Print Ltd

McGrath v Independent Print Ltd

The application for trial by jury was refused as the claimant was aware of the relevant procedural requirements and the court's discretion, exercised in accordance with the overriding objective, did not favour jury trial. The article, read as a whole, did not bear the meaning that the claimant sued over a book review but rather over subsequent online exchanges. Even if the claimant's meaning were accepted, it would not be defamatory in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The claim was struck out and judgment entered for the defendant.

Parties
Claimant: Christopher McGrath; Defendant: Independent Print Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Application and Ruling on Meaning and Trial Mode
Outcome
Claim struck out; judgment for the defendant
Legal Topics
Libel, Trial by Jury, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Case Management, Extension of Time, Disclosure
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Trial by Jury Meaning of Defamatory Statements Case Management Extension of Time Disclosure

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher McGrath

Claimant

Independent Print Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Application and Ruling on Meaning and Trial Mode

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a trial by jury under s.69 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 26.11
  2. 2 Whether the article published by the defendant bears the defamatory meaning contended for by the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the words complained of are capable of being defamatory of the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The application for trial by jury was refused as the claimant was aware of the relevant procedural requirements and the court's discretion, exercised in accordance with the overriding objective, did not favour jury trial. The article, read as a whole, did not bear the meaning that the claimant sued over a book review but rather over subsequent online exchanges. Even if the claimant's meaning were accepted, it would not be defamatory in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The claim was struck out and judgment entered for the defendant.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; judgment for the defendant

Orders

  • Claimant's application for trial by jury refused
  • Defendant's application on meaning granted