Ashcroft v Foley & Ors

Ashcroft v Foley & Ors

The Defendants' proposed amendments to plead justification and fair comment were refused for lack of clarity and particularity. The drafts were too vague, speculative, and failed to identify with sufficient precision the misconduct alleged against the Claimant. The Claimant is entitled to know the specific case he must meet, and the Defendants must spell out the facts and inferences relied upon. Mere general assertions or invitations to infer dishonesty without clear particulars are insufficient.

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
Civil Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Application to amend defence refused (in part); Defendants not permitted to plead justification and fair comment in the proposed form.
Legal Topics
Pleading Standards, Justification Defence, Fair Comment, Particularisation of Dishonesty, Lucas Box Meanings, Amendment of Pleadings
Defamation Civil Procedure Pleading Standards Justification Defence Fair Comment Particularisation of Dishonesty Lucas Box Meanings Amendment of Pleadings

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 14 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

Civil Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the pleading requirements for a defence of justification and/or fair comment alleging dishonesty?
  2. 2 Are the Defendants' proposed amendments to their defence sufficiently clear and particularised to be allowed?
  3. 3 Can the Defendants rely on inferences from pleaded facts to support allegations of dishonesty?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants' proposed amendments to plead justification and fair comment were refused for lack of clarity and particularity. The drafts were too vague, speculative, and failed to identify with sufficient precision the misconduct alleged against the Claimant. The Claimant is entitled to know the specific case he must meet, and the Defendants must spell out the facts and inferences relied upon. Mere general assertions or invitations to infer dishonesty without clear particulars are insufficient.

Court Disposition

Application to amend defence refused (in part); Defendants not permitted to plead justification and fair comment in the proposed form.

Orders

  • Defendants refused permission to amend their defence in the terms of the March draft as regards justification and fair comment.
  • Defendants may reformulate their case with proper particularity if so advised.