Riley v Sivier [2021] EWHC 79 (QB) (20 January 2021)

Riley v Sivier [2021] EWHC 79 (QB) (20 January 2021)

The defendant's pleaded defence of substantial truth is not arguable with a realistic prospect of success because the claimant's tweets and alleged omissions, even taken at their highest, do not amount to engaging in, supporting, or encouraging a campaign of online abuse and harassment. The pleadings lack sufficiency and particularity, and there is no sustainable basis for imputing responsibility to the claimant for third-party conduct. Consequently, the honest opinion and public interest defences, which are predicated on the factual allegation, also fail. The defence is struck out to the extent it relies on sections 2 to 4 of the Defamation Act 2013.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 79 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Rachel Riley; Defendant: Michael Sivier
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim / Application to Strike Out Defence and for Permission to Amend Defence
Outcome
Defendant's substantive defences struck out; application to amend defence refused; unopposed application to strike out part of claim form granted.
Legal Topics
Defence of Truth, Honest Opinion, Public Interest Defence, Strike Out Applications, Particularity of Pleadings, Online Harassment, Freedom of Expression
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Defence of Truth Honest Opinion Public Interest Defence Strike Out Applications Particularity of Pleadings +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rachel Riley

Claimant

Michael Sivier

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Claim / Application to Strike Out Defence and for Permission to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's pleaded defences of truth, honest opinion, and public interest are sustainable and should be allowed to proceed to trial; whether the defence discloses reasonable grounds; whether the pleadings are sufficiently particularised; whether omissions by the claimant can amount to supporting or encouraging harassment; whether the defendant should be permitted to amend his defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's pleaded defence of substantial truth is not arguable with a realistic prospect of success because the claimant's tweets and alleged omissions, even taken at their highest, do not amount to engaging in, supporting, or encouraging a campaign of online abuse and harassment. The pleadings lack sufficiency and particularity, and there is no sustainable basis for imputing responsibility to the claimant for third-party conduct. Consequently, the honest opinion and public interest defences, which are predicated on the factual allegation, also fail. The defence is struck out to the extent it relies on sections 2 to 4 of the Defamation Act 2013.

Court Disposition

Defendant's substantive defences struck out; application to amend defence refused; unopposed application to strike out part of claim form granted.

Orders

  • Defendant's defence under sections 2 to 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 struck out.
  • Defendant's application to amend defence refused as to substantive defences.