Eastwood v HarperCollins Publishers Ltd [2002] NICA 46 (07 November 2002)

Eastwood v HarperCollins Publishers Ltd [2002] NICA 46 (07 November 2002)

An allegation of untrustworthiness in a specific transaction or context does not amount to a general imputation of untrustworthiness. The words complained of were not reasonably capable of bearing the meaning that a general accusation of untrustworthiness had been levelled at the respondent. Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to amend its Defence to plead justification of a general charge of untrustworthiness.

Citation
[2002] NICA 46
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Bernard Joseph Eastwood; Defendant/appellant: HarperCollins Publishers Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
07 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Appeal From Interlocutory Order Refusing Leave to Amend Defence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Words, Amendment of Pleadings, Justification Defence
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Defamatory Words Amendment of Pleadings Justification 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Joseph Eastwood

Plaintiff/respondent

HarperCollins Publishers Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Appeal From Interlocutory Order Refusing Leave to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing a general imputation of untrustworthiness
  2. 2 Whether the defendant should be permitted to amend its Defence to plead justification of a general charge of untrustworthiness

Ratio Decidendi

An allegation of untrustworthiness in a specific transaction or context does not amount to a general imputation of untrustworthiness. The words complained of were not reasonably capable of bearing the meaning that a general accusation of untrustworthiness had been levelled at the respondent. Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to amend its Defence to plead justification of a general charge of untrustworthiness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Orders made by Kerr J refusing leave to amend Defence will stand