Andrew Bridgen v Matt Hancock

Andrew Bridgen v Matt Hancock

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 an MP had said something that morning related to vaccination is fact; the remainder is opinion. The tweet would be understood as Mr Hancock's strong opinion about the character of what was said, not as an assertion of fact about the MP's character or beliefs.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Andrew Bridgen; Defendant: Mr Matt Hancock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Preliminary Issues Hearing – Determination of Natural and Ordinary Meaning and Fact/opinion Distinction
Outcome
Preliminary issue determined – meaning and fact/opinion distinction established
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Publication, Fact Vs Opinion, Political Speech
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Publication Fact Vs Opinion 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Andrew Bridgen

Claimant

Mr Matt Hancock

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Preliminary Issues Hearing – Determination of 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 Does the tweet contain allegations of fact or expressions 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 an MP had said something that morning related to vaccination is fact; the remainder is opinion. The tweet would be understood as Mr Hancock's strong opinion about the character of what was said, not as an assertion of fact about the MP's character or beliefs.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issue determined – meaning and fact/opinion distinction established

Orders

  • The single natural and ordinary meaning of the tweet is as set out in paragraph 46 of the judgment.
  • The assertion that an MP had said something that morning related to vaccination is fact; the remainder is opinion.