Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 110 (QB) (30 January 2012)

Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 110 (QB) (30 January 2012)

The court held that many of the particulars of justification and elements of the Reynolds privilege defence in the amended defence were insufficiently particularised, vague, or based on inadmissible rumour, and thus should be struck out. Only those allegations that were sufficiently specific and capable of proof at...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 110
Parties
Claimant: David Hunt; Defendant: Times Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Amended Defence
Outcome
Application to strike out parts of the amended defence allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Justification Defence, Reynolds Privilege, Pleading Standards, Article 10 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Public Interest Defence, Particularisation of Allegations
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Justification Defence Reynolds Privilege Pleading Standards Article 10 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +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 7 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Hunt

Claimant

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Amended Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended defence discloses reasonable grounds for defending the claim
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of justification and Reynolds privilege are sufficiently particularised and admissible
  3. 3 Whether certain allegations should be struck out as vague, irrelevant, or prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that many of the particulars of justification and elements of the Reynolds privilege defence in the amended defence were insufficiently particularised, vague, or based on inadmissible rumour, and thus should be struck out. Only those allegations that were sufficiently specific and capable of proof at trial were allowed to stand. The court reaffirmed that grave allegations of criminal conduct must be pleaded with precision, and that responsible journalism under Reynolds privilege cannot be established by mere repetition of unsubstantiated allegations or reliance on unidentified sources without adequate detail.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out parts of the amended defence allowed in part.

Orders

  • Certain paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the amended defence struck out as insufficiently particularised or inadmissible.
  • Other specified allegations allowed to stand and proceed to trial.