Ashcroft v Foley & Ors [2011] EWHC 1710 (QB) (01 July 2011)

Ashcroft v Foley & Ors [2011] EWHC 1710 (QB) (01 July 2011)

The defendants' proposed amended defences of justification and fair comment are not sufficiently clear or particularised to be reinstated. The pleadings are too vague, speculative, and fail to specify the alleged misconduct with the required precision, especially where serious allegations of dishonesty are made. The claimant is entitled to know the case to be met, and the current draft does not meet the standards required for such allegations.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1710
Parties
Claimant: Lord Ashcroft KCMG; Defendant: Stephen Foley; Defendant: Independent News & Media Limited; Defendant: Roger Alton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Amend/reinstate Defences
Outcome
Application to reinstate/amend defences refused in current form
Legal Topics
Justification Defence, Fair Comment, Pleading Standards, Libel, Dishonesty Allegations
Media Law Defamation Justification Defence Fair Comment Pleading Standards Libel Dishonesty Allegations

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lord Ashcroft KCMG

Claimant

Stephen Foley

Defendant

Independent News & Media Limited

Defendant

Roger Alton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Amend/reinstate Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' amended draft defences of justification and fair comment are sufficiently particularised and clear to be reinstated after being previously struck out
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings adequately inform the claimant of the case to be met, especially regarding allegations of dishonesty and misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' proposed amended defences of justification and fair comment are not sufficiently clear or particularised to be reinstated. The pleadings are too vague, speculative, and fail to specify the alleged misconduct with the required precision, especially where serious allegations of dishonesty are made. The claimant is entitled to know the case to be met, and the current draft does not meet the standards required for such allegations.

Court Disposition

Application to reinstate/amend defences refused in current form

Orders

  • Defendants not permitted to reinstate justification and fair comment defences on the basis of the March draft as currently pleaded
  • Defendants required to provide further and better particulars if they wish to pursue such defences