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 only 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, speculative, or insufficiently connected to the claimant. The qualified privilege (Reynolds) defence as pleaded was unsustainable and should be struck out or re-pleaded.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2928 (QB)
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 and particulars of justification narrowed; qualified privilege defence struck out as pleaded.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification, Qualified Privilege, Meaning of Words, Repetition Rule, Reynolds Defence
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification Qualified Privilege Meaning of Words Repetition Rule Reynolds Defence

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?
  3. 3 Is the defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds) available on the pleaded facts?

Ratio Decidendi

The article was not capable of bearing only 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, speculative, or insufficiently connected to the claimant. The qualified privilege (Reynolds) defence as pleaded was unsustainable and should be struck out or re-pleaded.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; meanings and particulars of justification narrowed; qualified privilege defence struck out as pleaded.

Orders

  • Striking out of all particulars of justification not directly or circumstantially connected to the claimant or not capable of supporting the permissible defamatory meaning.
  • Striking out of the qualified privilege (Reynolds) defence as pleaded, with liberty to re-plead if so advised.