Foley & Ors v Ashcroft

Foley & Ors v Ashcroft

The defendants' pleadings of justification and honest comment were insufficiently clear and particularised to comply with established requirements; the judge was justified in striking out the defences and refusing permission to amend as pleaded; the meanings pleaded were either ambiguous, unsupported by particulars, or incapable of being borne by the words; repeated applications for amendment were not barred but further attempts risked abuse of process.

Parties
Appellant: Stephen Foley; Appellant: Independent News & Media Limited; Appellant: Roger Alton; Respondent: Lord Ashcroft KCMG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Orders Striking Out and Refusing Amendment of Defences
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Justification, Honest Comment, Case Management, Libel, Amendment of Pleadings
Defamation Media Law Pleadings Justification Honest Comment Case Management Libel 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Foley

Appellant

Independent News & Media Limited

Appellant

Roger Alton

Appellant

Lord Ashcroft KCMG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Orders Striking Out and Refusing Amendment of Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' pleadings of justification and honest comment met the required standards of clarity and particularity
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of were capable of bearing the meanings pleaded by the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the particulars pleaded were sufficient to support the meanings

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' pleadings of justification and honest comment were insufficiently clear and particularised to comply with established requirements; the judge was justified in striking out the defences and refusing permission to amend as pleaded; the meanings pleaded were either ambiguous, unsupported by particulars, or incapable of being borne by the words; repeated applications for amendment were not barred but further attempts risked abuse of process.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed.
  • Defendants not barred from making further application to amend pleadings, provided clarity and particularity are achieved.