Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 1220 (QB) (10 May 2012)

Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 1220 (QB) (10 May 2012)

The court held that, subject to minor exceptions, the Defendant's amended particulars of justification and Reynolds privilege defence were sufficiently particularised and legitimate to stand for trial. The pleadings provided adequate notice to the Claimant of the case to be met and did not unfairly reverse the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1220
Parties
Claimant: David Hunt; Defendant: Times Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence and Strike Out Certain Pleadings
Outcome
Application to strike out most of the Defendant's amended pleadings refused; most challenged paragraphs permitted to stand for trial, with minor exceptions requiring clarification or exclusion.
Legal Topics
Justification, Reynolds Privilege, Responsible Journalism, Public Interest, Burden of Proof, Police Records, General Bad Reputation
Media Law Defamation Human Rights Justification Reynolds Privilege Responsible Journalism Public Interest Burden of Proof +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Hunt

Claimant

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence and Strike Out Certain Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's amended particulars of justification and Reynolds privilege defence should be permitted to stand or be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings are sufficiently particularised to inform the Claimant of the case to meet
  3. 3 Whether the allegations and supporting materials meet the threshold for responsible journalism under Reynolds privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, subject to minor exceptions, the Defendant's amended particulars of justification and Reynolds privilege defence were sufficiently particularised and legitimate to stand for trial. The pleadings provided adequate notice to the Claimant of the case to be met and did not unfairly reverse the burden of proof. The court accepted that, in the context of responsible journalism and public interest, cumulative and consistent allegations from police records and multiple sources could be relied upon, even if not all were independently verified. The plea of general bad reputation was also permitted to stand as a general assertion.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out most of the Defendant's amended pleadings refused; most challenged paragraphs permitted to stand for trial, with minor exceptions requiring clarification or exclusion.

Orders

  • Defendant's amended particulars of justification and Reynolds privilege defence permitted to stand, subject to minor modifications.
  • Certain paragraphs (e.g., 9.11(a)-(b), 9.12-9.13, 9.19, 9.21, 9.22(k)) struck out or required clarification as indicated in the judgment.