Hamilton & Anor v Clifford

Hamilton & Anor v Clifford

The words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the claimants and should be left for the jury. The defences of justification and fair comment are struck out as unsustainable, and evidence of general bad reputation is excluded. The only substantive defence remaining is qualified privilege on the limited ground of reply to attack.

Parties
Claimant: Christine Hamilton; Claimant: Neil Hamilton; Defendant: Max Clifford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications to Strike Out Meanings and Defences
Outcome
Defences of justification, fair comment, and general bad reputation struck out; qualified privilege defence survives on limited grounds; case to proceed to trial on meaning and malice.
Legal Topics
Libel, Slander, Justification, Fair Comment, Qualified Privilege, Repetition Rule, General Bad Reputation
Defamation Media Law Libel Slander Justification Fair Comment Qualified Privilege Repetition Rule +1 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 36 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Hamilton

Claimant

Neil Hamilton

Claimant

Max Clifford

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications to Strike Out Meanings and Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege are sustainable
  3. 3 Application of the repetition rule in defamation

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the claimants and should be left for the jury. The defences of justification and fair comment are struck out as unsustainable, and evidence of general bad reputation is excluded. The only substantive defence remaining is qualified privilege on the limited ground of reply to attack.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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