Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd
The article, read as a whole by the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader, bore the meaning that Lance Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance in cycling competitions, and that his conduct was fraudulent, amounted to cheating, and his denials were lies.
- 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 / Preliminary Issue on Meaning, Judgment
- Outcome
- Meaning found for claimant; Armstrong's meaning upheld
- Legal Topics
- Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Publication, Interpretation of Publications, Reasonable Reader Test
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lance Armstrong
Claimant
Times Newspapers Limited
Defendant
David Walsh
Defendant
Alan English
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Libel / Preliminary Issue on Meaning, Judgment
Legal Issues
- 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 hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader, bore the meaning that Lance Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance in cycling competitions, and that his conduct was fraudulent, amounted to cheating, and his denials were lies.
Court Disposition
Meaning found for claimant; Armstrong's meaning upheld
Orders
- The meaning contended for by Lance Armstrong is upheld; the meaning advanced by the Defendants is rejected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment