Cases

Rath v Guardian News & Media Limited & Anor

Held

(1) The third Lucas-Box meaning shared a common sting with the second pleaded meaning - that the Claimant had vigorously and irresponsibly campaigned against ARV medication being made available in South Africa - and would not be struck out; Polly-Peck v Trelford [1986] QB 1000 applied.

(2) It was not right to strike out the justification defence as to the consequences of the Claimant's activities. This was based upon an inference and whether that inference was properly to be drawn was a matter for trial.

(3) It was not possible to say that the article was incapable of bearing the comment pleaded by the Defendants. The Defendants had a real prospect of being able to rely upon s.6 Defamation Act 1952 if, notwithstanding the error about sale, they could demonstrate sufficient true facts to support the comment.

(4) The Defendants were not entitled to rely upon earlier articles in mitigation of damages; Dingle v Associated [1964] AC 371 applied.

Also