Prime Minister’s Defamation Time

The BBC has reported that recently Boris Johnson was found to have an unsatisfied County Court Judgement (CCJ) in respect of allegations made against him for “committed repeated defamation”. It is reported that the judgment was obtained following a claim being issued using the online money claims service. The existence of the CCJ apparently came as a surprise to the Prime Minister, who immediately took steps to set the judgment aside. It is not surprising that Mr Johnson was surprised by the existence of the CCJ for the reasons set out below.

Boris Johnson’s CCJ for alleged defamation

The first point to note is that it is bizarre that the claim was issued using the online money claim service. Defamation proceedings are a specialist area of practice and, accordingly, are usually issued and dealt with in the Media and Communications list in the High Court.

Given that Mr Johnson was unaware of the proceedings, it is likely that either they were not effectively served on him or, if they were, he did not become aware of them as they were sent to him at No.10 and was not notified of them being received. Assuming Mr Johnson did not respond, a Claimant can seek judgment in default.

Judgment in default can be obtained using one of two procedures:

1. For a claim for a specified sum of money and that is the only remedy sought, a simple form can be filled out and filed with the Court. The Court will then issue the judgment in default.
2. In all other cases, a formal Court application would need to be made and a hearing conducted before a judgment in default of a defence or Acknowledgement of Service will be granted.

Defamation cases are not usually issued for a specified sum of money, as the losses tend to be less precise and often involve a request for an injunction. This means that the appropriate procedure to obtain judgment in default is to issue a formal application. This would have resulted in the application being served on Mr Johnson and a Court hearing taking place in front of a Judge. When presented with an application of this nature against the Prime Minister, it would be extremely unlikely that the presiding Judge would not have made substantial enquiries into both the merits of the claim and what steps had been taken to bring the matter to Mr Johnson’s attention.

Given the above, it is suspected that, due to the online money claim service being used, the incorrect judgment in default procedure was used and accordingly the Claimant managed to obtain the judgment inappropriately. If the BBC’s report is accurate, this is most likely the reason why the judgment in default no longer exists, it having been set aside. Once set aside, the proceedings continue as if the judgment had not been entered and, accordingly, it is unclear whether the case continues or whether the Prime Minister has managed to get the case against him struck out.

It is not clear what allegations were made against Mr Johnson or their context but it is conceivable that the allegations could have related to comments made by Mr Johnson whilst in Parliament. If so, it is likely that Boris Johnson would be able to rely upon Parliamentary Privilege, which would act as a complete defence to defamation.