Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston & Anor [2009] EWHC 398 (QB) (04 March 2009)

The defence of justification is embarrassing and defective due to lack of particularity, inclusion of irrelevant and prejudicial material, improper shifting of burden of proof, and reliance on inadmissible third-party allegations; it must be struck out in its entirety with leave to re-plead.

Citation: [2009] EWHC 398 (QB)
Parties: Claimant: Prince Radu of Hohenzollern; Defendant: Marco Houston; Defendant: Sena-Julia Publicatus Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 04 March 2009
Procedural Posture: Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence
Outcome: Defence of justification struck out with leave to re-plead; defence of fair comment deleted.
Legal Topics: Justification Defence, Pleading Requirements, Burden of Proof, Particularisation, Strike Out Applications

Defamation Civil Procedure Justification Defence Pleading Requirements Burden of Proof Particularisation Strike Out Applications

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 7 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern

Claimant

Marco Houston

Defendant

Sena-Julia Publicatus Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defence of justification is adequately pleaded
2 Whether irrelevant, embarrassing, or prejudicial material should be struck out
3 Whether particulars of dishonesty and fraud are sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Defence of justification struck out with leave to re-plead; defence of fair comment deleted.

Orders

Strike out plea of justification as a whole.
Delete defence of fair comment.