Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWHC 3375 (QB) (25 November 2015)

Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWHC 3375 (QB) (25 November 2015)

The court found that Times Newspapers Limited failed to prove the substantial truth of the defamatory factual imputations that Tim Yeo was prepared to act, or had offered himself as willing to act, in breach of the House of Commons Code of Conduct as a paid Parliamentary advocate. The honest comment defence failed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3375 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Tim Yeo; Defendant: Times Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation / High Court Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Honest Comment, Reynolds Privilege, Parliamentary Code of Conduct, Paid Advocacy, Responsible Journalism
Media Law Defamation Constitutional Law Libel Honest Comment Reynolds Privilege Parliamentary Code of Conduct Paid Advocacy +1 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tim Yeo

Claimant

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / High Court Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the articles published by Times Newspapers Limited were defamatory of Tim Yeo
  2. 2 Whether the defamatory factual imputations were substantially true (justification)
  3. 3 Whether the defamatory comments constituted honest comment

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Times Newspapers Limited failed to prove the substantial truth of the defamatory factual imputations that Tim Yeo was prepared to act, or had offered himself as willing to act, in breach of the House of Commons Code of Conduct as a paid Parliamentary advocate. The honest comment defence failed because the facts established did not support the defamatory comment. The Reynolds privilege defence failed as the journalism was not responsible: the articles did not give a fair and accurate account of the totality of the evidence and omitted material facts. The 23 June article was found to refer to Tim Yeo but was not justified or privileged. Judgment was entered for the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the claimant
  • Injunction against further publication of the defamatory imputations