Corbyn v Millett
The judge was entitled to find that the words used by Mr Corbyn were statements of fact, not opinion, and that the imputations were defamatory at common law, crossing the threshold of seriousness. The appeal is dismissed.
- Parties
- Appellant/defendant: The Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP; Respondent/claimant: Richard Millett
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 20 April 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (libel) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Preliminary Issues
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Libel, Honest Opinion Defence, Defamatory Meaning, Fact Vs Opinion, Threshold of Seriousness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP
Appellant/defendant
Richard Millett
Respondent/claimant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (libel) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Preliminary Issues
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the statement was one of fact or opinion under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013
- 2 Whether the statement was defamatory at common law
Ratio Decidendi
The judge was entitled to find that the words used by Mr Corbyn were statements of fact, not opinion, and that the imputations were defamatory at common law, crossing the threshold of seriousness. The appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed; High Court's findings on preliminary issues stand.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment