Waterson v Lloyd MP & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 136 (28 February 2013)

The words complained of in the campaign publications constituted comment based on identified facts (the amount and nature of expenses claimed), not statements of fact alleging breach of rules or unlawful conduct; thus, the defence of honest comment applies and the publications are not defamatory statements of fact.

Citation: [2013] EWCA Civ 136
Parties: Respondent: Nigel Waterson; Appellant: Stephen Lloyd MP; Appellant: Rebecca Carr
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 28 February 2013
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Libel, Honest Comment Defence, Political Speech, Parliamentary Expenses, Meaning of Words in Defamation

Defamation Media Law Election Law Libel Honest Comment Defence Political Speech Parliamentary Expenses Meaning of Words 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Nigel Waterson

Respondent

Stephen Lloyd MP

Appellant

Rebecca Carr

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether campaign publications about an MP's expenses constituted defamatory statements of fact or comment
2 Whether the defence of honest comment applies to the publications
3 Proper approach to determining meaning in defamation cases

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

First appeal allowed; summary judgment for Mr Waterson set aside; defence of honest comment permitted to proceed