Cases

Radu v Houston & Another (No.4)

Held

Striking out the defence (subject to repleading):

(1) The allegations were very serious, and there was the clearest duty on any litigant who chose to allege fraud and forgery to let the "accused" know with complete frankness the case he had to meet;

(2) A defendant who seeks to justify a Chase level two meaning must comply with the disciplines set out in Musa King v Telegraph, not least by identifying the conduct said to have founded the suspicion, and not seeking to shift the burden of proof onto the claimant;

(3) Newspaper articles cannot be introduced into a defence of justification, as part of the factual matrix, or on the basis that the claimant has failed to refute them, even if that is part of the meaning sought to be justified;

(4) Lord Woolf's observations in McPhilemy about witness statements supplementing the defence do not sanction any relaxation of the basic rule that a claimant is entitled to know the case he has to meet.

Also