Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 3058 (QB) (16 November 2020)

Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 3058 (QB) (16 November 2020)

Permission to amend to add a public interest defence was refused because the proposed pleading failed to distinguish between the Defendant's subjective belief and objective truth, lacked proper particularisation of investigations prior to publication, and was inadequately explained as to delay. Permission to amend the particulars of truth was granted as they expanded on the existing defence and no application had been made to strike out the truth defence.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3058 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Jamal Hijazi (by his litigation friend Abdulnaser Youssef); Defendant: Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend Defence
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Libel, Amendment of Pleadings, Public Interest Defence (s.4 Defamation Act 2013), Truth Defence, Procedural Delay, Costs Management
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Amendment of Pleadings Public Interest Defence (s.4 Defamation Act 2013) Truth Defence Procedural Delay Costs Management

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamal Hijazi (by his litigation friend Abdulnaser Youssef)

Claimant

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant should be granted permission to amend his Defence to add a public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant should be granted permission to amend the particulars of truth in his Defence

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend to add a public interest defence was refused because the proposed pleading failed to distinguish between the Defendant's subjective belief and objective truth, lacked proper particularisation of investigations prior to publication, and was inadequately explained as to delay. Permission to amend the particulars of truth was granted as they expanded on the existing defence and no application had been made to strike out the truth defence.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Permission to amend Defence to add a public interest defence refused.
  • Permission to amend particulars of truth in Defence granted.