Wasserman v Freilich [2016] EWHC 312 (QB) (19 February 2016)

Wasserman v Freilich [2016] EWHC 312 (QB) (19 February 2016)

The defence of honest opinion under s.3 of the Defamation Act 2013 cannot be pleaded in respect of allegations of dishonesty, as such allegations are statements of fact, not opinion. The relevant part of the defence must be struck out.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 312
Parties
Claimant: Renee Wasserman; Defendant: Laurence Freilich
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Application to Strike Out Parts of the Defence Under CPR 3.4(2)
Outcome
Application granted in part; the plea of honest opinion is struck out.
Legal Topics
Libel, Honest Opinion Defence, Qualified Privilege, Striking Out Pleadings, Defamation Act 2013
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Honest Opinion Defence Qualified Privilege Striking Out Pleadings Defamation Act 2013

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renee Wasserman

Claimant

Laurence Freilich

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Application to Strike Out Parts of the Defence Under CPR 3.4(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of honest opinion under s.3 of the Defamation Act 2013 can be pleaded in respect of allegations of dishonesty
  2. 2 Whether the relevant statements are statements of fact or opinion
  3. 3 Whether the defence as pleaded discloses any reasonable grounds for defending the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of honest opinion under s.3 of the Defamation Act 2013 cannot be pleaded in respect of allegations of dishonesty, as such allegations are statements of fact, not opinion. The relevant part of the defence must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; the plea of honest opinion is struck out.

Orders

  • Paragraph 19A of the defence (plea of honest opinion) is struck out.
  • Defendant to provide details of facts relied upon for qualified privilege in relation to each recipient of the emails.