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 defence is not sufficiently clear or particularised to put the claimant on notice of the case to meet, especially regarding allegations of dishonesty and serious misconduct. The draft attempts to cover a range of scenarios without specifying the precise nature of the alleged wrongdoing, amounting to speculation rather than a properly pleaded case. Accordingly, permission to amend in the proposed terms is refused.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1710 (QB)
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 of Justification and Fair Comment After Previous Striking Out
Outcome
Application to amend/reinstate defences of justification and fair comment refused in the proposed terms.
Legal Topics
Pleading Standards for Justification and Fair Comment, Particularisation of Dishonesty in Libel, Amendment of Defences, Inference From Pleaded Facts, Burden of Proof in Defamation
Media Law Defamation Civil Procedure Pleading Standards for Justification and Fair Comment Particularisation of Dishonesty in Libel Amendment of Defences Inference From Pleaded Facts Burden of Proof in Defamation

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 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 of Justification and Fair Comment After Previous Striking Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the pleading requirements for a defence of justification involving dishonesty in libel?
  2. 2 Can the defendants amend their defence to reinstate justification and fair comment based on new wording?
  3. 3 Is the proposed pleading sufficiently clear and particularised to put the claimant on notice of the case to meet?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' proposed amended defence is not sufficiently clear or particularised to put the claimant on notice of the case to meet, especially regarding allegations of dishonesty and serious misconduct. The draft attempts to cover a range of scenarios without specifying the precise nature of the alleged wrongdoing, amounting to speculation rather than a properly pleaded case. Accordingly, permission to amend in the proposed terms is refused.

Court Disposition

Application to amend/reinstate defences of justification and fair comment refused in the proposed terms.

Orders

  • Permission to amend the defence in the terms of the March draft is refused.
  • Defendants must provide a clear and particularised pleading if they wish to pursue justification or fair comment.