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 was refused because they had all necessary information to plead justification earlier, chose not to do so, and allowing amendment after judgment would be contrary to the principles of finality, efficient conduct of litigation, and the overriding objective. Exceptional circumstances justifying such a late amendment were not established.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3292 (QB)
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 Liability Judgment, Before Order Drawn Up
Outcome
Defendants' applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Amendment of Pleadings, Justification Defence, Honest Comment, Summary Judgment, Overriding Objective
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Amendment of Pleadings Justification Defence Honest Comment Summary Judgment Overriding Objective

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 Liability Judgment, Before Order Drawn Up

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 but before the order is drawn up
  2. 2 Whether entry of judgment for the claimant should be stayed pending appeal and/or determination of the application to amend

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' application to amend their defence to plead justification was refused because they had all necessary information to plead justification earlier, chose not to do so, and allowing amendment after judgment would be contrary to the principles of finality, efficient conduct of litigation, and the overriding objective. Exceptional circumstances justifying such a late amendment were not established.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to amend defence to plead justification dismissed
  • Application to stay entry of judgment for claimant dismissed