Bridgen v Hancock [2024] EWHC 1603 (KB) (24 June 2024)

Bridgen v Hancock [2024] EWHC 1603 (KB) (24 June 2024)

The tweet's single natural and ordinary meaning is that an unnamed MP had said something that morning related to vaccination which was baseless, unscientific, dangerous and offensive, including because its character was antisemitic. The assertion that the MP had said something that morning, and that it related to vaccination, are propositions of fact; the remainder, including the epithets such as 'antisemitic', are expressions of opinion about the character of the speech, not the character or beliefs of the MP.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1603 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Andrew Bridgen; Defendant: Mr Matt Hancock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / Preliminary Issues Hearing: Determination of Single Natural and Ordinary Meaning and Fact/opinion Distinction
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: meaning and fact/opinion distinction resolved as set out in the judgment; no final determination of liability or damages.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Publication, Fact Vs Opinion, Defamatory Tendency, Political Speech
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Publication Fact Vs Opinion Defamatory Tendency 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Andrew Bridgen

Claimant

Mr Matt Hancock

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / Preliminary Issues Hearing: Determination of Single Natural and Ordinary Meaning and Fact/opinion Distinction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the single natural and ordinary meaning of the tweet complained of?
  2. 2 Is the publication an allegation of fact or an expression of opinion?

Ratio Decidendi

The tweet's single natural and ordinary meaning is that an unnamed MP had said something that morning related to vaccination which was baseless, unscientific, dangerous and offensive, including because its character was antisemitic. The assertion that the MP had said something that morning, and that it related to vaccination, are propositions of fact; the remainder, including the epithets such as 'antisemitic', are expressions of opinion about the character of the speech, not the character or beliefs of the MP.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: meaning and fact/opinion distinction resolved as set out in the judgment; no final determination of liability or damages.

Orders

  • The single natural and ordinary meaning of the publication is as stated in the judgment.
  • The underlined words are an assertion of fact; the remainder is an expression of opinion.