Cook & Carlton Communications plc v News Group Newspapers Ltd
(1) The issue was whether the article was capable of bearing a general meaning of fakery. Eady J had been wrong to rule that the articles were incapable of bearing such a general meaning. Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford (1986) QB 1000 applied. (2) Whilst the court undoubtedly had jurisdiction under CPR 3.1(2)(k) to exclude an issue from consideration, it would not be right to prevent the appellant from relying on fakery in relation to "The Connection" as part of its defence of the sting of fakery.