Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors v Armstrong

Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors v Armstrong

The Court of Appeal held that section 69(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 gives the court an open discretion to order that the issue of meaning in a libel action be tried by a jury, even if the rest of the action is to be tried by judge alone. However, the judge at first instance was entitled to decide, based on case management considerations and the overriding objective, that there was no significant advantage in having the issue of meaning tried by a jury, and thus the preliminary issue should be determined by judge alone. The appellate court found no error of principle in the judge’s exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Times Newspapers Limited; Appellant: David Walsh; Appellant: Alan English; Respondent: Lance Armstrong
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (libel) / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division Decision on Mode of Trial for Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Trial by Jury, Preliminary Issues, Section 69 Supreme Court Act 1981
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Trial by Jury Preliminary Issues Section 69 Supreme Court Act 1981

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Times Newspapers Limited

Appellant

David Walsh

Appellant

Alan English

Appellant

Lance Armstrong

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (libel) / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division Decision on Mode of Trial for Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the preliminary issue of meaning in a libel action should be tried by a judge alone or by a jury under section 69(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Interpretation and application of section 69(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that section 69(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 gives the court an open discretion to order that the issue of meaning in a libel action be tried by a jury, even if the rest of the action is to be tried by judge alone. However, the judge at first instance was entitled to decide, based on case management considerations and the overriding objective, that there was no significant advantage in having the issue of meaning tried by a jury, and thus the preliminary issue should be determined by judge alone. The appellate court found no error of principle in the judge’s exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary issue of meaning in the libel action shall be determined by judge alone.