Richard (Raziel) Davidoff & Ors v Nicholas Hargrave

Richard (Raziel) Davidoff & Ors v Nicholas Hargrave

Evidence regarding the characteristics of the defendant’s Twitter followers is not admissible to determine whether the hypothetical reasonable reader would click on a hyperlink in the 7 May 2022 Tweet. The claimants’ pleadings of reference innuendo in relation to both the 7 May 2022 Tweet and the 11 May 2022 Post are defective but may be capable of amendment; the claimants are given an opportunity to amend their pleadings.

Parties
Claimant: Richard (Raziel) Davidoff; Claimant: Hannah (Hanni) Davidoff; Claimant: Tamara Davidoff; Claimant: Debby Davidoff; Defendant: Nicholas Hargrave
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Preliminary Issues)
Outcome
Reference innuendo pleadings defective; claimants granted leave to amend
Legal Topics
Reference Innuendo, Pleading Requirements, Hyperlink Evidence, Strike Out Applications, Preliminary Issues
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Reference Innuendo Pleading Requirements Hyperlink Evidence Strike Out Applications Preliminary Issues

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard (Raziel) Davidoff

Claimant

Hannah (Hanni) Davidoff

Claimant

Tamara Davidoff

Claimant

Debby Davidoff

Claimant

Nicholas Hargrave

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Preliminary Issues)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence regarding the defendant’s Twitter followers is admissible to determine if the hypothetical reasonable reader would click on a hyperlink in the 7 May 2022 Tweet
  2. 2 Whether the claimants’ pleadings of reference innuendo in relation to the 7 May 2022 Tweet and the 11 May 2022 Post are defective and liable to be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence regarding the characteristics of the defendant’s Twitter followers is not admissible to determine whether the hypothetical reasonable reader would click on a hyperlink in the 7 May 2022 Tweet. The claimants’ pleadings of reference innuendo in relation to both the 7 May 2022 Tweet and the 11 May 2022 Post are defective but may be capable of amendment; the claimants are given an opportunity to amend their pleadings.

Court Disposition

Reference innuendo pleadings defective; claimants granted leave to amend

Orders

  • Claimants given opportunity to amend paragraphs 11, 8.1, and 8.2 of the Amended Particulars of Claim within a tight timescale to remedy defects in pleading reference innuendo.
  • Parties to agree terms of order and timetable for amendment and subsequent submissions.