Harrath v Stand for Peace Ltd & Anor

Harrath v Stand for Peace Ltd & Anor

The court struck out the unsustainable defences of statutory privilege and truth based on the Interpol Red Notice and Tunisian conviction, as well as the plea of general bad reputation. The court refused permission to amend the Defence to plead matters not mentioned in the article or not properly particularised, holding that the law on admissibility in mitigation had not changed under the Defamation Act 2013. Only the fact of the conviction (with its current status) could be pleaded in mitigation. The court found both parties at fault in pre-action conduct but held defendants responsible for costs of the abandoned defences.

Parties
Claimant: Mohamed Ali Harrath; Defendant: Stand for Peace Limited; Defendant: Samuel Westrop
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out and Amendment of Defence
Outcome
Strike out of unsustainable defences; permission to amend Defence granted only in part; costs to be paid by defendants for abandoned defences.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Threshold, Mitigation of Damages, Statutory Privilege, Truth Defence, Pleading Standards, Costs
Defamation Civil Procedure Serious Harm Threshold Mitigation of Damages Statutory Privilege Truth Defence Pleading Standards Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Ali Harrath

Claimant

Stand for Peace Limited

Defendant

Samuel Westrop

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out and Amendment of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the Defence should be struck out for lack of reasonable grounds or unsustainable factual basis
  2. 2 Whether defendants should be permitted to amend the Defence to plead matters relevant to serious harm and damages
  3. 3 Whether reliance on certain matters (bad reputation, foreign conviction, Interpol Red Notice, other allegations) is legitimate in principle and properly pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The court struck out the unsustainable defences of statutory privilege and truth based on the Interpol Red Notice and Tunisian conviction, as well as the plea of general bad reputation. The court refused permission to amend the Defence to plead matters not mentioned in the article or not properly particularised, holding that the law on admissibility in mitigation had not changed under the Defamation Act 2013. Only the fact of the conviction (with its current status) could be pleaded in mitigation. The court found both parties at fault in pre-action conduct but held defendants responsible for costs of the abandoned defences.

Court Disposition

Strike out of unsustainable defences; permission to amend Defence granted only in part; costs to be paid by defendants for abandoned defences.

Orders

  • Defences of statutory privilege and truth based on Interpol Red Notice and Tunisian conviction struck out.
  • Permission to amend Defence granted for deletion of unsustainable pleas and limited mitigation points.