Riley v Sivier

Riley v Sivier

The defendant's pleaded defence of substantial truth, honest opinion, and public interest fails for want of sufficiency, particularity, and primary facts. Ms Riley's tweets and alleged omissions do not objectively demonstrate a campaign of abuse or harassment, and there is no sustainable basis for imputing responsibility for third-party conduct. The defence discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim and is struck out.

Parties
Claimant: Rachel Riley; Defendant: Michael Sivier
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Strike Out Application of Defence
Outcome
Defence struck out as to substantial truth, honest opinion, and public interest; application to amend defence refused.
Legal Topics
Substantial Truth Defence, Honest Opinion Defence, Public Interest Defence, Strike Out Applications, Online Harassment, Burden of Proof, Particularity of Pleadings
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Substantial Truth Defence Honest Opinion Defence Public Interest Defence Strike Out Applications Online Harassment +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rachel Riley

Claimant

Michael Sivier

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Strike Out Application of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's pleaded defence of substantial truth, honest opinion, and public interest is capable of succeeding at trial
  2. 2 Whether the defence discloses reasonable grounds for defending the claim
  3. 3 Whether the defence is sufficiently particularised and supported by primary facts

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's pleaded defence of substantial truth, honest opinion, and public interest fails for want of sufficiency, particularity, and primary facts. Ms Riley's tweets and alleged omissions do not objectively demonstrate a campaign of abuse or harassment, and there is no sustainable basis for imputing responsibility for third-party conduct. The defence discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim and is struck out.

Court Disposition

Defence struck out as to substantial truth, honest opinion, and public interest; application to amend defence refused.

Orders

  • Defence of Mr Sivier struck out insofar as it relates to sections 2 to 4 of the Defamation Act 2013.
  • Application to amend defence refused.