Price v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC 3014 (QB) (08 November 2018)

Price v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC 3014 (QB) (08 November 2018)

The words complained of in all three articles bore the meanings alleged by the claimant, namely that he was party to the illegal accessing of the mobile phone records of Mirror journalists while Chief Constable. The defendant's arguments that the articles did not bear those meanings, or that any harm was negated by prior allegations, were rejected. The claim is not bound to fail, nor is it an abuse of process. The applications for summary judgment and strike-out are refused.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3014
Parties
Claimant: Sean Price; Defendant: MGN Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Preliminary Issue on Meaning and Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Defendant's applications for summary judgment and strike-out refused. Claim to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Serious Harm Requirement, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Mitigation of Damages, Bad Reputation Evidence
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Defamatory Statements Serious Harm Requirement Summary Judgment Strike Out Mitigation of Damages +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean Price

Claimant

MGN Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Preliminary Issue on Meaning and Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in the three articles?
  2. 2 Do the articles bear the 'Interception Meaning' alleged by the claimant?
  3. 3 Should the claim be summarily dismissed or struck out on the basis that the claimant's reputation was already destroyed by other allegations?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of in all three articles bore the meanings alleged by the claimant, namely that he was party to the illegal accessing of the mobile phone records of Mirror journalists while Chief Constable. The defendant's arguments that the articles did not bear those meanings, or that any harm was negated by prior allegations, were rejected. The claim is not bound to fail, nor is it an abuse of process. The applications for summary judgment and strike-out are refused.

Court Disposition

Defendant's applications for summary judgment and strike-out refused. Claim to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Preliminary issue on meaning determined in favour of the claimant.
  • Summary judgment and strike-out applications dismissed.