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 defendant; the repetition rule precludes justification by reference to mere repetition of allegations; the particulars of justification do not provide objectively reasonable grounds to suspect the claimants and are struck out; the defence of fair comment is not available as the words are factual in character; evidence of general bad reputation is irrelevant; only the defence of qualified privilege on the basis of reply to attack survives to trial.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1542 (QB)
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) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Applications (striking Out of Meanings and Defences)
Outcome
Defences of justification, fair comment, and general bad reputation struck out; only qualified privilege (reply to attack) survives to trial.
Legal Topics
Libel, Slander, Justification, Fair Comment, Qualified Privilege, Repetition Rule, Meaning in Defamation, General Bad Reputation
Defamation Media Law Libel Slander Justification Fair Comment Qualified Privilege Repetition Rule +2 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 6 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Hamilton

Claimant

Neil Hamilton

Claimant

Max Clifford

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel and Slander) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Applications (striking Out of Meanings 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 Application of the repetition rule to the pleaded meanings and defences

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings alleged by the claimants and defendant; the repetition rule precludes justification by reference to mere repetition of allegations; the particulars of justification do not provide objectively reasonable grounds to suspect the claimants and are struck out; the defence of fair comment is not available as the words are factual in character; evidence of general bad reputation is irrelevant; only the defence of qualified privilege on the basis of reply to attack survives to trial.

Court Disposition

Defences of justification, fair comment, and general bad reputation struck out; only qualified privilege (reply to attack) survives to trial.

Orders

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