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 articles were not substantially true in the most serious allegations of criminality and corruption; the defendants failed to prove Mr Cruddas knowingly offered to facilitate illegal donations or corrupt access. The defence of truth failed in respect of the core defamatory meanings. Malicious falsehood was not established as the defendants did not act with malice.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2298 (QB)
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 / Second Stage Trial, Post Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Claimant succeeds in libel; defendants' truth defence fails.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Truth Defence, Party Funding, Journalistic Entrapment, Electoral Donations
Defamation Media Law Electoral Law Libel Malicious Falsehood Truth Defence 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Cruddas

Claimant

Jonathan Calvert

Defendant

Heidi Blake

Defendant

Times Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Malicious Falsehood / Second Stage Trial, Post Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published articles were substantially true
  2. 2 Whether the articles constituted libel and malicious falsehood
  3. 3 Whether the conduct alleged amounted to criminality under electoral law

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the articles were not substantially true in the most serious allegations of criminality and corruption; the defendants failed to prove Mr Cruddas knowingly offered to facilitate illegal donations or corrupt access. The defence of truth failed in respect of the core defamatory meanings. Malicious falsehood was not established as the defendants did not act with malice.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds in libel; defendants' truth defence fails.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay damages to claimant
  • Defendants to publish corrections