In a previous blog, the early stages of the libel claim brought by Prince Harry against Associated Newspapers earlier this year were discussed.
Summary
This libel case revolved around a story printed by the Defendant in the Mail on Sunday and the Mail Online about the Judicial Review applications issued against the UK Government for a review of the Government’s decision to refuse to provide security for Prince Harry and his family when in the UK.
There is no dispute about whether the UK Government refused to provide security for Prince Harry and his family whilst in the UK. The dispute revolves around an allegation made by the Defendant that Prince Harry sought to spin the news coverage to be more positively in his favour by claiming that he had offered to pay for police protection whilst in the UK.
In the above referred to blog, the judgment of Mr Justice Nicklin about the natural and ordinary meaning of the words written is discussed in more detail but in summary, the pertinent difference between the Claimant and the Defendant’s position for the purposes of the recent application appears to be whether Prince Harry offered to pay for police protection before or after the Judicial Review application was issued.
Following that judgment, the Defendant submitted a defence relying upon the statutory defence set out in section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 that the opinion expressed in the offending article was held honestly and that ‘an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of: (a) any facts which existed at the time the statement complained of was published; (b) anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of’.
Prince Harry recently applied for summary judgment and struck out of the defence of honest opinion. Prince Harry claimed that he had made an offer to pay for police protection before starting the Judicial Review process during a meeting between him, the late Queen, King Charles, and Prince William whilst at Sandringham. Prince Harry therefore claimed that the Defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim.
Upon considering the Claimant’s application, Mr Justice Nicklin did not agree with the Claimant. The judge found that the Claimant was seeking to force this claim into a single fact case (i.e. that it can be won or lost on the basis of a single fact) but that such an argument fails for the following reasons:
- It relies upon the offer made being wide enough to encompass an offer made to the UK Government – the UK Government not appearing to have been represented at the Sandringham meeting; and
- Where there is any ambiguity in the scope of the offer to pay for security made by Prince Harry, the Defendant is ‘entitled to rely upon its interpretation as part of its ability to select the facts that it wishes to prove true in support of its honest opinion defence’.
The judge therefore dismissed the application for strike out and summary judgment and the case will now proceed to trial, where full evidence will be heard from the parties.
Whilst it is easy to understand why Prince Harry thought he could succeed with a summary judgment/strike-out application on the basis of the ‘single fact’ argument he relied upon, this judgment demonstrates that:
1. Summary judgment and strike-out applications are notoriously difficult to succeed within this type of claim; and
2. The outcome of these cases is often very nuanced.
How can Nelsons help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in commercial disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us