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

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

The defendant is legally responsible for publication of the newsletters as he participated in, approved, and encouraged their production and distribution; the passages complained of are defamatory as they impute hypocrisy and conduct likely to lower the claimant's reputation, and constitute comment rather than fact.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 701 (QB)
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; passages found defamatory and as comment.
Legal Topics
Responsibility for Publication, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Comment Vs Fact, Threshold of Seriousness in Defamation
Defamation Tort Law Responsibility for Publication Meaning of Defamatory Statements Comment Vs Fact Threshold of Seriousness in Defamation

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 16 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 is legally responsible for publication of the newsletters
  2. 2 Whether the passages complained of are defamatory
  3. 3 Whether the passages are comment or fact

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is legally responsible for publication of the newsletters as he participated in, approved, and encouraged their production and distribution; the passages complained of are defamatory as they impute hypocrisy and conduct likely to lower the claimant's reputation, and constitute comment rather than fact.

Court Disposition

Defendant held legally responsible for publication; passages found defamatory and as comment.

Orders

  • Proceedings to continue on remaining issues; defence of honest comment not determined at this stage.