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 a Mirror journalist while Chief Constable. The defendant's arguments that the articles did not bear such meanings, or only suggested suspicion, were rejected. The claim could not be struck out or summarily dismissed on the basis that the claimant's reputation was already destroyed by other allegations, as established legal principles prevent reliance on the truth of distinct, uncomplained-of imputations or on prior publications to defeat or mitigate the claim at this stage. The claim must proceed to trial.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3014 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Sean Price; Defendant: MGN Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Preliminary Issue 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, Serious Harm Requirement, Summary Judgment, Meaning of Words, Mitigation of Damages, Abuse of Process
Media Law Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Serious Harm Requirement Summary Judgment Meaning of Words 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean Price

Claimant

MGN Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Preliminary Issue 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 struck out or summary judgment granted 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 a Mirror journalist while Chief Constable. The defendant's arguments that the articles did not bear such meanings, or only suggested suspicion, were rejected. The claim could not be struck out or summarily dismissed on the basis that the claimant's reputation was already destroyed by other allegations, as established legal principles prevent reliance on the truth of distinct, uncomplained-of imputations or on prior publications to defeat or mitigate the claim at this stage. The claim must proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The issue of meaning is determined in favour of the claimant: the articles bore the Interception Meanings alleged.
  • The defendant's applications for summary judgment and strike-out are dismissed.