Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWHC 209 (QB) (04 February 2015)

Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWHC 209 (QB) (04 February 2015)

The plea of malice as drafted failed to comply with the requirements of clarity, precision, and particularity for allegations of dishonesty. It did not clearly set out the factual basis for the allegation against the journalists, nor did it specify which facts were relied on, and was equivocal in its references. The court struck out the malice plea without prejudice to an application to amend, placing the onus on the claimant to justify any future plea. Costs budgets were approved with reductions and guidance provided on methodology and contingencies.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 209 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Tim Yeo MP; Defendant: Times Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Second Case Management Conference; Application to Strike Out Malice Plea; Costs Management
Outcome
Claimant's plea of malice struck out without prejudice to an application to amend; parties' costs budgets approved with reductions and guidance.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malice Pleading, Costs Budgeting, Fair Comment/honest Opinion, Reynolds Privilege
Media Law Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Malice Pleading Costs Budgeting Fair Comment/honest Opinion Reynolds Privilege

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tim Yeo MP

Claimant

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Second Case Management Conference; Application to Strike Out Malice Plea; Costs Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's plea of malice should be struck out for lack of proper particularity and clarity
  2. 2 To what extent the parties' costs budgets should be approved

Ratio Decidendi

The plea of malice as drafted failed to comply with the requirements of clarity, precision, and particularity for allegations of dishonesty. It did not clearly set out the factual basis for the allegation against the journalists, nor did it specify which facts were relied on, and was equivocal in its references. The court struck out the malice plea without prejudice to an application to amend, placing the onus on the claimant to justify any future plea. Costs budgets were approved with reductions and guidance provided on methodology and contingencies.

Court Disposition

Claimant's plea of malice struck out without prejudice to an application to amend; parties' costs budgets approved with reductions and guidance.

Orders

  • Paragraph 14 of the Reply (malice plea) struck out.
  • Claimant may apply to amend to add a properly formulated plea of malice.