Cruddas v Calvert & Ors [2013] EWHC 2298 (QB) (31 July 2013)

Cruddas v Calvert & Ors [2013] EWHC 2298 (QB) (31 July 2013)

The court found that the sting of the libel in the articles—that the claimant corruptly offered access and influence in return for donations and was prepared to countenance breaches of electoral law—was not substantially true. The defendants failed to prove the truth of the most serious imputations. The defence of truth failed, and the claimant succeeded in his claim for libel and malicious falsehood.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2298
Parties
Claimant: Peter Cruddas; Defendant: Jonathan Calvert; Defendant: Heidi Blake; Defendant: Times Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Libel and Malicious Falsehood / Judgment After Trial on Remaining Issues Following Preliminary Determination of Meaning
Outcome
Claimant succeeded; judgment for the claimant on libel and malicious falsehood.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Truth Defence, Political Party Funding, Journalistic Entrapment, Press Complaints Commission Code
Media Law Defamation Electoral Law Libel Malicious Falsehood Truth Defence Political Party Funding Journalistic Entrapment +1 more

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Cruddas

Claimant

Jonathan Calvert

Defendant

Heidi Blake

Defendant

Times Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Malicious Falsehood / Judgment After Trial on Remaining Issues Following Preliminary Determination of Meaning

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published articles were substantially true in their defamatory meanings as determined by the Court of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the defendants acted with malice in publishing the alleged malicious falsehoods
  3. 3 Whether the articles imputed criminality or impropriety to the claimant under electoral law

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sting of the libel in the articles—that the claimant corruptly offered access and influence in return for donations and was prepared to countenance breaches of electoral law—was not substantially true. The defendants failed to prove the truth of the most serious imputations. The defence of truth failed, and the claimant succeeded in his claim for libel and malicious falsehood.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeded; judgment for the claimant on libel and malicious falsehood.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay damages to the claimant.
  • Defendants to publish a summary of the judgment.