Hamilton & Anor v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) (22 June 2004)

Hamilton & Anor v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) (22 June 2004)

The words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings alleged by the claimants and the defendant; the defences of justification and fair comment are struck out as unsustainable on the pleaded facts; the only substantive defence remaining is qualified privilege limited to reply to attack; evidence of general bad reputation is irrelevant and inadmissible.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1542
Parties
Claimant: Christine Hamilton; Claimant: Neil Hamilton; Defendant: Max Clifford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel and Slander) / Interlocutory Applications (pre Trial Rulings on Pleadings and Defences)
Outcome
Defences of justification, fair comment, and general bad reputation struck out; qualified privilege defence survives on limited basis; case to proceed to trial on meaning and malice.
Legal Topics
Libel, Slander, Justification, Fair Comment, Qualified Privilege, Repetition Rule, General Bad Reputation, Meaning in Defamation, Malice
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Slander Justification Fair Comment Qualified Privilege +4 more

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 37 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Hamilton

Claimant

Neil Hamilton

Claimant

Max Clifford

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel and Slander) / Interlocutory Applications (pre Trial Rulings on Pleadings and Defences)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings alleged by the claimants or defendant
  2. 2 Whether the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege are available on the pleaded facts
  3. 3 Whether the repetition rule precludes certain meanings or defences

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings alleged by the claimants and the defendant; the defences of justification and fair comment are struck out as unsustainable on the pleaded facts; the only substantive defence remaining is qualified privilege limited to reply to attack; evidence of general bad reputation is irrelevant and inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Defences of justification, fair comment, and general bad reputation struck out; qualified privilege defence survives on limited basis; case to proceed to trial on meaning and malice.

Orders

  • Plea of justification struck out.
  • Plea of fair comment struck out.