Andrew Bridgen v Matt Hancock
[2024] EWHC 1603 (KB)
Andrew Bridgen MP v Matthew Hancock MP
20 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 623 (KB)
High Court
Two MPs clashed on Twitter. One sued the other for defamation. The judge said the suing MP didn't explain well enough how people would know the tweet was about him, but gave him a second chance to fix his argument.
Key Facts
- •Andrew Bridgen MP (Claimant) sued Matthew Hancock MP (Defendant) for defamation over a tweet.
- •The defendant's tweet referred to a 'sitting MP' who spouted antisemitic, anti-vax conspiracy theories, without naming Bridgen.
- •Bridgen's tweet, linking to an article about adverse vaccine reactions, and stating it was 'the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust', prompted the Conservative Party to withdraw the whip.
- •The defendant's tweet was published shortly after the withdrawal of the whip and referenced Bridgen's actions in Parliament and on social media.
- •The defendant applied to strike out parts of the Particulars of Claim for failing to articulate a proper case on reference (identifying the claimant in the defamatory statement).
Legal Principles
Reference is an essential element of a defamation claim; the words must be 'of and concerning' the claimant.
E. Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20; Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] AC 116
Reference can be established through ordinary reference (named or identifiable) or reference innuendo (identified by facts known to individuals).
Dyson Technology Ltd v Channel Four Television Corporation [2023] EWCA Civ 884
The test for reference is objective: would a reasonable reader, with necessary extrinsic knowledge, understand the words to refer to the claimant?
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239
In reference innuendo, the claimant must plead that the extrinsic facts were known to readers and would lead a reasonable reader to identify the claimant.
Various cases cited in sections 33-39
A strike-out application is not evidence-based; the court assumes pleaded facts are true and will only strike out if the claim is bound to fail.
Richards (t/a Richards & Co) v Hughes [2004] EWCA Civ 266
If a pleading is defective, the court should allow amendment unless it's certain the defect cannot be remedied.
Kim v Park [2011] EWHC 1781 (QB)
Outcomes
Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, and 24 of the Particulars of Claim were struck out.
These paragraphs were either irrelevant to the reference issue or defectively pleaded reference innuendo.
The claim was not struck out.
While the claimant's pleading of reference was defective, it was considered amendable, and the court gave the claimant an opportunity to amend the Particulars of Claim to remedy the deficiencies.