Bridgen v Hancock [2024] EWHC 623 (KB) (20 March 2024)

Bridgen v Hancock [2024] EWHC 623 (KB) (20 March 2024)

The claimant's pleading of reference is defective because it fails to plead, as required in a reference innuendo case, that the extrinsic facts relied upon were known to readers of the defendant's Tweet and would have led reasonable readers to identify the claimant as the subject. However, the defect is capable of being cured by amendment, and the claimant should be given an opportunity to amend the Particulars of Claim to remedy the deficiencies. The claim is not struck out at this stage.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 623 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Bridgen MP; Defendant: Matthew Hancock MP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim / Defendant's Application to Strike Out Parts of Particulars of Claim Prior to Defence
Outcome
Application to strike out granted in part; paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, and 24 of the Particulars of Claim struck out; claimant given opportunity to amend pleading; claim not struck out in entirety.
Legal Topics
Reference in Defamation, Pleading Requirements, Strike Out Applications, Reference Innuendo, Ordinary Reference, Identification of Claimant
Defamation Media Law Reference in Defamation Pleading Requirements Strike Out Applications Reference Innuendo Ordinary Reference Identification of Claimant

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Bridgen MP

Claimant

Matthew Hancock MP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Claim / Defendant's Application to Strike Out Parts of Particulars of Claim Prior to Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleading sufficiently articulates a case on reference (identification) in defamation
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 7-24 of the Particulars of Claim should be struck out for failure to plead reference properly
  3. 3 Whether the claimant should be given an opportunity to amend the pleading

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's pleading of reference is defective because it fails to plead, as required in a reference innuendo case, that the extrinsic facts relied upon were known to readers of the defendant's Tweet and would have led reasonable readers to identify the claimant as the subject. However, the defect is capable of being cured by amendment, and the claimant should be given an opportunity to amend the Particulars of Claim to remedy the deficiencies. The claim is not struck out at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out granted in part; paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, and 24 of the Particulars of Claim struck out; claimant given opportunity to amend pleading; claim not struck out in entirety.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, and 24 of the Particulars of Claim are struck out.
  • Claimant is given leave to amend the Particulars of Claim to remedy the deficiencies identified.