Wasserman v Freilich

Wasserman v Freilich

Allegations of dishonesty are statements of fact, not opinion, and thus cannot be defended under s.3 of the Defamation Act 2013 as honest opinion. The defendant's pleading in paragraph 19A must be struck out.

Parties
Claimant: Renee Wasserman; Defendant: Laurence Freilich
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence
Outcome
Application granted in part; paragraph 19A of the defence struck out.
Legal Topics
Libel, Honest Opinion, Qualified Privilege, Strike Out Application
Defamation Libel Honest Opinion Qualified Privilege Strike Out Application

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renee Wasserman

Claimant

Laurence Freilich

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant can rely on a defence of honest opinion under s.3 of the Defamation Act 2013 for allegations of dishonesty
  2. 2 Whether the relevant statements are fact or opinion
  3. 3 Whether the defence complies with procedural requirements

Ratio Decidendi

Allegations of dishonesty are statements of fact, not opinion, and thus cannot be defended under s.3 of the Defamation Act 2013 as honest opinion. The defendant's pleading in paragraph 19A must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; paragraph 19A of the defence struck out.

Orders

  • Paragraph 19A of the defence is struck out.
  • Defendant to provide details of facts relied upon for qualified privilege for each email recipient.