Cruddas v Calvert & Ors

Cruddas v Calvert & Ors

The words complained of bear each of the natural and ordinary meanings pleaded by the Claimant in paragraph 6 of the Amended Particulars of Claim for the purposes of libel. For malicious falsehood, the words are reasonably capable of bearing both the Claimant's and Defendants' pleaded meanings (subject to one exception), and were probably so understood by a substantial number of readers. Evidence from readers on meaning is not admitted in this case. Paragraph 8 of the Amended Defence is struck out as logically defective.

Parties
Claimant: Peter Cruddas; Defendant: Jonathan Calvert; Defendant: Heidi Blake; Defendant: Times Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation/malicious Falsehood) / Preliminary Issue on Meaning Before Trial
Outcome
Preliminary issue determined in favour of the Claimant on meaning; paragraph 8 of the Amended Defence struck out.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Meaning of Words, Single Meaning Rule, Evidence on Meaning, Electoral Law
Defamation Tort Law Media Law Libel Malicious Falsehood Meaning of Words Single Meaning Rule Evidence on Meaning +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 3 Authorities cited 16 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

Civil (defamation/malicious Falsehood) / Preliminary Issue on Meaning Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of for the purposes of libel?
  2. 2 Are the words capable of bearing the meanings pleaded by the Claimant and/or the Defendants for malicious falsehood?
  3. 3 Is evidence from readers admissible on meaning in malicious falsehood?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of bear each of the natural and ordinary meanings pleaded by the Claimant in paragraph 6 of the Amended Particulars of Claim for the purposes of libel. For malicious falsehood, the words are reasonably capable of bearing both the Claimant's and Defendants' pleaded meanings (subject to one exception), and were probably so understood by a substantial number of readers. Evidence from readers on meaning is not admitted in this case. Paragraph 8 of the Amended Defence is struck out as logically defective.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issue determined in favour of the Claimant on meaning; paragraph 8 of the Amended Defence struck out.

Orders

  • The words complained of bear the meanings pleaded by the Claimant for libel.
  • For malicious falsehood, the words are reasonably capable of bearing both parties' pleaded meanings (subject to one exception).