Simon Blake & Ors v Laurence Fox
[2023] EWCA Civ 1000
Blake & Ors v Fox
21 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 3351 (KB)
High Court
A judge ruled that a defendant didn't need more details from the other side in a defamation case because a previous judge had already decided what the offensive word meant. Getting more information was deemed unnecessary and costly.
Key Facts
- •Costs and case management conference concerning a defamation case with counterclaims.
- •Defendant applied for an order compelling claimants to answer questions 17-23 of requests for further information.
- •Requests relate to the meaning of "racist" in the claimants' defences of honest opinion and truth.
- •A preliminary issue trial before Nicklin J determined the natural and ordinary meaning of the defendant's tweets as stating that the defendant is a racist.
- •Disagreement on whether Nicklin J's determination requires further elaboration on the meaning of "racist" in the claimants' defences.
Legal Principles
Requests for further information under CPR Part 18 must be strictly confined to matters reasonably necessary and proportionate.
Al-Saud v Gibbs [2022] EWHC 706 (Comm)
The rule regarding requests for further information must be strictly confined to what is necessary and proportionate, avoiding disproportionate expense.
King v Telegraph Group Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 613
A defendant cannot advance meanings that are at variance with the actual meanings found by the court in a defamation claim.
Bokova v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 2032 (QB)
The alleged absence of further particulars not preventing the requesting party from preparing for the CCMC is relevant to proportionality and necessity.
Kings Security System Limited v Kings and Evans [2019] EWHC 3620
Outcomes
Defendant's application dismissed.
The claimants have sufficiently identified the controversial statements; further elaboration is unnecessary given Nicklin J's determination of the meaning of "racist". The requests are not reasonably necessary or proportionate.