Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2004] EWHC 2928 (QB) (17 December 2004)

Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2004] EWHC 2928 (QB) (17 December 2004)

The article was not capable of bearing the lowest (third-tier) defamatory meaning; it was capable only of imputing guilt or, at least, reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of taking performance-enhancing drugs. Many particulars of justification were struck out as irrelevant or insufficiently connected to the claimant. The defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds privilege) as pleaded was unsustainable and should be struck out or re-pleaded.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2928
Parties
Claimant: Lance Armstrong; Defendant: Times Newspapers Ltd; Defendant: David Walsh; Defendant: Alan English
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Meanings, Particulars of Justification, and Qualified Privilege
Outcome
Application granted in part; meanings limited; particulars of justification struck out in large part; defence of qualified privilege struck out or to be re-pleaded.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification, Qualified Privilege, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Repetition Rule, Reynolds Privilege, Striking Out Pleadings
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification Qualified Privilege Meaning of Defamatory Statements Repetition Rule Reynolds Privilege +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lance Armstrong

Claimant

Times Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

David Walsh

Defendant

Alan English

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Meanings, Particulars of Justification, and Qualified Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What defamatory meanings are the words complained of capable of bearing?
  2. 2 Which particulars of justification are permissible to support the remaining meanings?
  3. 3 Is the defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds privilege) available on the pleaded facts?

Ratio Decidendi

The article was not capable of bearing the lowest (third-tier) defamatory meaning; it was capable only of imputing guilt or, at least, reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of taking performance-enhancing drugs. Many particulars of justification were struck out as irrelevant or insufficiently connected to the claimant. The defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds privilege) as pleaded was unsustainable and should be struck out or re-pleaded.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; meanings limited; particulars of justification struck out in large part; defence of qualified privilege struck out or to be re-pleaded.

Orders

  • Meanings limited to guilt or reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of doping.
  • Particulars of justification not sufficiently connected to the claimant struck out.