James v Saunders [2019] EWHC 3265 (QB) (29 November 2019)

James v Saunders [2019] EWHC 3265 (QB) (29 November 2019)

The words complained of in the tweet and blog posts meant the claimant is a bully (or vicious bully) and that she corruptly obtained a council house by exploiting political connections. These are statements of fact, not opinion, and are defamatory at common law. The proposed defences of honest opinion and public interest were inadequately pleaded and had no real prospect of success; permission to amend was refused.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3265
Parties
Claimant: Sarah James; Defendant: Julian Saunders
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Libel/defamation / Preliminary Issues Judgment
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined in favour of the claimant; permission to amend to plead honest opinion and public interest defences refused.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Words, Fact or Opinion, Defamatory at Common Law, Honest Opinion Defence, Public Interest Defence, Reverse Innuendo, Serious Harm
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Words Fact or Opinion Defamatory at Common Law Honest Opinion Defence Public Interest Defence +2 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah James

Claimant

Julian Saunders

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel/defamation / Preliminary Issues Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in each publication?
  2. 2 Are the words statements of fact or opinion?
  3. 3 Are the words defamatory at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of in the tweet and blog posts meant the claimant is a bully (or vicious bully) and that she corruptly obtained a council house by exploiting political connections. These are statements of fact, not opinion, and are defamatory at common law. The proposed defences of honest opinion and public interest were inadequately pleaded and had no real prospect of success; permission to amend was refused.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined in favour of the claimant; permission to amend to plead honest opinion and public interest defences refused.

Orders

  • Meanings of the words complained of determined as pleaded by the claimant.
  • Words found to be statements of fact, not opinion.