McEvoy v Michael [2014] EWHC 701 (QB) (18 March 2014)

McEvoy v Michael [2014] EWHC 701 (QB) (18 March 2014)

The defendant was legally responsible for the publication of the newsletters because he was actively involved in the approval process, was chairman of the branch that decided on the publication strategy, and was named as promoter. His involvement went beyond passive receipt of drafts; he participated in the process leading to publication and cannot distance himself from responsibility. The words complained of were defamatory and, in the context, amounted to comment imputing hypocrisy, which the defendant admitted was defamatory.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 701
Parties
Claimant: Neil McEvoy; Defendant: Michael Costas Michael
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Defendant held legally responsible for publication of the newsletters and for the defamatory statements therein; preliminary issues determined in favour of the claimant.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Publication Responsibility, Honest Comment, Political Speech
Tort Media Law Defamation Publication Responsibility Honest Comment Political Speech

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil McEvoy

Claimant

Michael Costas Michael

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was legally responsible for publication of the newsletters containing alleged defamatory statements
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of were defamatory of the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the words were statements of fact or comment

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was legally responsible for the publication of the newsletters because he was actively involved in the approval process, was chairman of the branch that decided on the publication strategy, and was named as promoter. His involvement went beyond passive receipt of drafts; he participated in the process leading to publication and cannot distance himself from responsibility. The words complained of were defamatory and, in the context, amounted to comment imputing hypocrisy, which the defendant admitted was defamatory.

Court Disposition

Defendant held legally responsible for publication of the newsletters and for the defamatory statements therein; preliminary issues determined in favour of the claimant.

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant is responsible in law for publication of the newsletters and the words complained of.
  • Declaration that the words complained of are defamatory of the claimant.