Judgment has been handed down in a strike-out application by former health secretary Matt Hancock MP in respect of a libel claim brought against him by Andrew Bridgen MP, MP for North West Leicestershire.
Mr Hancock applied to strike out Mr Bridgen’s claim on the basis that it did not properly articulate a case on reference. On the morning of 9 January 2023, Mr Bridgen had published a Tweet, linking to an article about deaths and other adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, stating “As one consultant cardiologist said to me this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust”. As a result of Mr Bridgen’s Tweet, the Conservative party withdrew the party whip from him. At 1.03pm Mr Hancock published a Tweet stating, “The disgusting and dangerous anti-semitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society”. Mr Hancock’s Tweet included a link to a video of him asking a question in the House of Commons in similar terms.
Mr Bridgen issued proceedings for libel, claiming that he was the “sitting MP” referred to. Mr Hancock contended that the particulars of claim did not set out a proper case on reference. He invited Mr Bridgen to amend but Mr Bridgen declined.
Steyn J rejected Mr Bridgen’s primary contention – that the claim set out a viable “ordinary” case on reference. Applying Dyson v Channel Four Television Corporation [2023] 4 WLR 67, she held that, although persons acquainted with Mr Bridgen would know he was a sitting MP, knowledge of that fact alone was insufficient for a reasonable reader to conclude that Mr Hancock’s Tweet referred to him. Knowledge of further facts would be necessary and such facts would need to be set out as particulars of a reference innuendo; they were not attributes of Mr Bridgen that would be known to persons “acquainted” with him in the sense contemplated in Dyson.
As to the Mr Bridgen’s case on reference innuendo, Steyn J accepted that the present pleading was defective and that some parts of it were irrelevant. However, she was satisfied that Mr Bridgen would have little difficulty establishing a reference innuendo on the basis that some readers of Mr Hancock’s Tweet would already have been aware of Mr Bridgen’s Tweet, online criticism of Mr Bridgen’s Tweet, and/or the press release announcing the reasons for withdrawing the Conservative whip, perhaps in combination with knowledge of the Mr Bridgen’s track-record as a vaccine-sceptic MP. Accordingly she granted Mr Bridgen an opportunity to propose amendments to his case.
The Judge awarded Mr Hancock 90% of his costs of the application. If Mr Bridgen successfully amends his particulars of reference, the case will proceed to a trial of the usual preliminary issues prior to service of a defence.
The full judgment can be found here.
5RB’s Aidan Eardley KC appeared for Matt Hancock MP, instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain.