Fallon v MGN Ltd [2006] EWHC 783 (QB) (10 April 2006)

Fallon v MGN Ltd [2006] EWHC 783 (QB) (10 April 2006)

The defendant's plea of justification was struck out because the particulars pleaded, including betting statistics, a car journey, and the claimant's failure to sue earlier, were incapable of supporting reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of conspiracy to defraud or race-fixing. The expert evidence did not support any suspicious conduct by the claimant, and the defence improperly sought to reverse the burden of proof. There was no pleaded conduct or primary fact linking the claimant to the alleged conspiracy.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 783
Parties
Claimant: Kieren Fallon; Defendant: MGN Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Defence of Justification
Outcome
Defendant's plea of justification struck out
Legal Topics
Justification Defence, Lucas Box Meanings, Pleading Standards, Burden of Proof, Race Fixing Allegations, Repetition Rule
Media Law Defamation Civil Procedure Justification Defence Lucas Box Meanings Pleading Standards Burden of Proof Race Fixing Allegations +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kieren Fallon

Claimant

MGN Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Defence of Justification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's plea of justification discloses reasonable grounds for defending the claim
  2. 2 Whether particulars pleaded are capable of supporting reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of conspiracy to defraud or race-fixing
  3. 3 Whether the defence reverses the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's plea of justification was struck out because the particulars pleaded, including betting statistics, a car journey, and the claimant's failure to sue earlier, were incapable of supporting reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of conspiracy to defraud or race-fixing. The expert evidence did not support any suspicious conduct by the claimant, and the defence improperly sought to reverse the burden of proof. There was no pleaded conduct or primary fact linking the claimant to the alleged conspiracy.

Court Disposition

Defendant's plea of justification struck out

Orders

  • Defendant's plea of justification is struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for defending the claim
  • Leave to amend may be considered if further evidence arises