Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2005] EWHC 2816 (QB) (07 December 2005)

Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2005] EWHC 2816 (QB) (07 December 2005)

Where the exclusionary criteria of s.69(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 are fulfilled, the action should be tried by judge alone unless the court exercises its discretion otherwise. There is jurisdiction to order a jury trial for a specific issue, but the court should only do so if there is a clear advantage. In this case, there is no significant countervailing advantage to justify a jury trial for the issue of meaning, and the preliminary issue should be determined by judge alone.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2816 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Lance Armstrong; Defendant: Times Newspapers Ltd; Defendant: David Walsh; Defendant: Alan English
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Preliminary Hearing on Mode of Trial for Issue of Meaning
Outcome
Application for jury trial of preliminary issue of meaning refused; issue to be determined by judge alone.
Legal Topics
Mode of Trial, Jury Trial, Interpretation of Supreme Court Act 1981 S.69, Meaning in Libel Actions
Defamation Civil Procedure Mode of Trial Jury Trial Interpretation of Supreme Court Act 1981 S.69 Meaning in Libel Actions

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 4 Authorities cited 18 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 / Preliminary Hearing on Mode of Trial for Issue of Meaning

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the preliminary issue of meaning in a libel action should be tried by judge alone or by jury
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order a jury trial for a specific issue when the action as a whole is to be tried by judge alone under s.69 of the Supreme Court Act 1981

Ratio Decidendi

Where the exclusionary criteria of s.69(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 are fulfilled, the action should be tried by judge alone unless the court exercises its discretion otherwise. There is jurisdiction to order a jury trial for a specific issue, but the court should only do so if there is a clear advantage. In this case, there is no significant countervailing advantage to justify a jury trial for the issue of meaning, and the preliminary issue should be determined by judge alone.

Court Disposition

Application for jury trial of preliminary issue of meaning refused; issue to be determined by judge alone.

Orders

  • The preliminary issue of meaning shall be determined by judge alone.