Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 1614 (QB) (30 June 2006)

Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 1614 (QB) (30 June 2006)

The article, read as a whole by the ordinary reasonable reader, bore the meaning that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his cycling performance, and by so doing and denying it was a fraud, cheat, and liar. The denials and countervailing material in the article were insufficient to displace this meaning.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1614 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Lance Armstrong; Defendant: Times Newspapers Limited; Defendant: David Walsh; Defendant: Alan English
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Preliminary Issue on Meaning, Tried by Judge Alone
Outcome
Meaning contended for by the claimant upheld; defendants' meaning rejected.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Publication, Media Publications, Defences in Defamation
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Defamatory Publication Media Publications Defences 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lance Armstrong

Claimant

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant

David Walsh

Defendant

Alan English

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Preliminary Issue on Meaning, Tried by Judge Alone

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What defamatory meaning was borne by the article published by The Sunday Times on 13 June 2004 about Lance Armstrong

Ratio Decidendi

The article, read as a whole by the ordinary reasonable reader, bore the meaning that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his cycling performance, and by so doing and denying it was a fraud, cheat, and liar. The denials and countervailing material in the article were insufficient to displace this meaning.

Court Disposition

Meaning contended for by the claimant upheld; defendants' meaning rejected.

Orders

  • The article is held to bear the meaning that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance in cycling competitions, and by so doing and denying it was a fraud, cheat, and liar.