Cases

Winslet v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Held

Giving permission for the statement in open court to be read,

(1) There was jurisdiction under paragraph 6.1, which states simply that an application to read a unilateral statement may be made 'where a party wishes to accept a Part 36 offer or other offer of settlement in relation to a claim for... libel.'

(2) The statement in open court had long been recognised as a natural incident of settlement (see Barnet v Crozier) and it would be artificial to consider it as representing a 'continuation of defamation proceedings', as defined in s3(2) of the Act. There was no good reason to make an exception to the broad wording of this paragraph of the Practice Direction. Furthermore, there was no injustice to D in permitting C on the facts to make a unilateral statement in order to draw the settlement to the attention of readers given the obscure and modest nature of D's apology as compared to the original libel.

Also