Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors

Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors

The article is not capable of bearing a meaning at the lowest level of gravity; it imputes reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of taking performance-enhancing drugs. Only particulars of justification directly relevant to this meaning are permissible. Qualified privilege is not available as the defendants did not afford the claimant a proper opportunity to respond and did not satisfy Reynolds criteria. Security for costs is allowed for £10,000; costs-capping order is refused.

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 / Interlocutory Ruling on Meanings, Particulars of Justification, Qualified Privilege, Security for Costs, and Costs Capping Order
Outcome
Application to strike out parts of defence allowed in part; plea of qualified privilege disallowed; security for costs granted; costs-capping order refused.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification, Qualified Privilege, Repetition Rule, Costs, Security for Costs, Costs Capping Order
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification Qualified Privilege Repetition Rule Costs Security for Costs +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lance Armstrong

Claimant

Times Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

David Walsh

Defendant

Alan English

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Interlocutory Ruling on Meanings, Particulars of Justification, Qualified Privilege, Security for Costs, and Costs Capping Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article is capable of bearing defamatory meanings at different levels of gravity
  2. 2 Whether particulars of justification pleaded by defendants are permissible
  3. 3 Whether qualified privilege (Reynolds defence) is available

Ratio Decidendi

The article is not capable of bearing a meaning at the lowest level of gravity; it imputes reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of taking performance-enhancing drugs. Only particulars of justification directly relevant to this meaning are permissible. Qualified privilege is not available as the defendants did not afford the claimant a proper opportunity to respond and did not satisfy Reynolds criteria. Security for costs is allowed for £10,000; costs-capping order is refused.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out parts of defence allowed in part; plea of qualified privilege disallowed; security for costs granted; costs-capping order refused.

Orders

  • Only justification at level of 'reasonable grounds to suspect' allowed.
  • Irrelevant, speculative, or repetition rule-breaching particulars struck out.