Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd

Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd

The plea of malice as drafted failed to comply with the requirements of clarity, precision, and proper particularisation for an allegation of dishonesty. It did not clearly identify the facts relied on, was equivocal, and did not specify which allegations were made against which individuals. The court struck out the plea of malice in the Reply, without prejudice to an application to amend if a properly formulated plea could be advanced. Costs budgets for both parties were reviewed and approved with reductions and comments as set out in the judgment appendices.

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 and First Costs Management Conference; Application to Strike Out Plea of Malice; Costs Budgeting
Outcome
Plea of malice struck out; costs budgets approved with modifications
Legal Topics
Libel, Fair Comment/honest Opinion, Malice Pleading, Reynolds Privilege, Costs Budgeting
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Fair Comment/honest Opinion Malice Pleading Reynolds Privilege Costs Budgeting

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 5 Authorities cited 13 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 and First Costs Management Conference; Application to Strike Out Plea of Malice; Costs Budgeting

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 proper particularisation for an allegation of dishonesty. It did not clearly identify the facts relied on, was equivocal, and did not specify which allegations were made against which individuals. The court struck out the plea of malice in the Reply, without prejudice to an application to amend if a properly formulated plea could be advanced. Costs budgets for both parties were reviewed and approved with reductions and comments as set out in the judgment appendices.

Court Disposition

Plea of malice struck out; costs budgets approved with modifications

Orders

  • Paragraph 14 of the Reply (plea of malice) struck out, without prejudice to an application to amend if a proper plea can be formulated.
  • Claimant's and defendant's costs budgets for future costs approved in the sums set out in the judgment appendices, with reductions and comments as specified.