Waterson v Lloyd & Anor

Waterson v Lloyd & Anor

Defendants had all information necessary to plead justification before judgment, and allowing amendment post-judgment would be contrary to established practice and the overriding objective. No exceptional circumstances justified departure from the general rule requiring litigants to bring forward their whole case at once.

Parties
Claimant: Nigel Waterson; Defendant: Stephen Lloyd MP; Defendant: Rebecca Carr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Libel / Post Judgment Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Defendants' applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Pleading Amendment, Justification Defence, Honest Comment
Defamation Libel Pleading Amendment Justification Defence Honest Comment

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Waterson

Claimant

Stephen Lloyd MP

Defendant

Rebecca Carr

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Post Judgment Application to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be permitted to amend their defence post-judgment to plead justification
  2. 2 Whether judgment for claimant should be stayed pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants had all information necessary to plead justification before judgment, and allowing amendment post-judgment would be contrary to established practice and the overriding objective. No exceptional circumstances justified departure from the general rule requiring litigants to bring forward their whole case at once.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications dismissed

Orders

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