Waterson v Lloyd & Anor [2011] EWHC 3292 (QB) (13 December 2011)

Waterson v Lloyd & Anor [2011] EWHC 3292 (QB) (13 December 2011)

The defendants' application to amend their defence to plead justification after judgment on liability was refused because they had the necessary information to plead justification earlier, the meaning found was not a surprise, and allowing amendment would undermine the principle that litigants must bring their whole case at once. Exceptional circumstances justifying amendment post-judgment were not present.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3292
Parties
Claimant: Nigel Waterson; Defendant: Stephen Lloyd MP; Defendant: Rebecca Carr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Post Judgment Applications; Application to Amend Defence After Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Defendants' applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Amendment of Pleadings, Justification Defence, Honest Comment, Summary Judgment
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Amendment of Pleadings Justification Defence Honest Comment Summary Judgment

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Waterson

Claimant

Stephen Lloyd MP

Defendant

Rebecca Carr

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Post Judgment Applications; Application to Amend Defence After Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be granted permission to amend their defence to plead justification after judgment on liability has been handed down
  2. 2 Whether entry of judgment for the claimant should be stayed pending appeal and/or application to amend

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' application to amend their defence to plead justification after judgment on liability was refused because they had the necessary information to plead justification earlier, the meaning found was not a surprise, and allowing amendment would undermine the principle that litigants must bring their whole case at once. Exceptional circumstances justifying amendment post-judgment were not present.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to amend defence to plead justification dismissed
  • Application to stay entry of judgment pending appeal and/or amendment dismissed