Sir James Dyson v MGN Limited
[2023] EWHC 3092 (KB)
The Duke of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Limited
8 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3120 (KB)
High Court
Prince Harry sued a newspaper for saying he misled the public about a legal case. The newspaper argued it was just an honest opinion. The judge agreed the newspaper had a good chance of winning, because the core issue wasn't about when Harry offered to pay for security, but whether his public statements were misleading. The judge said a reasonable person could think the statements were misleading.
Key Facts
- •Prince Harry (Claimant) sued Associated Newspapers Limited (Defendant) for libel over an article in the Mail on Sunday.
- •The article claimed Harry misleadingly presented his legal challenge to the Home Office's security decision as being about his willingness to pay, when in fact he hadn't formally offered to pay before initiating legal proceedings.
- •Harry made an informal offer to pay for security at the Sandringham meeting in January 2020 but didn't formally communicate this offer to the relevant government bodies before commencing his judicial review claim.
- •The Defendant relied on a defence of honest opinion under the Defamation Act 2013.
- •The Claimant applied to strike out the defence or for summary judgment.
Legal Principles
Striking out a statement of case is permitted if it discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim (CPR 3.4(2)(a)).
CPR 3.4(2)(a)
Summary judgment can be granted if a claim has no real prospect of success (CPR Part 24). The court considers evidence and avoids mini-trials but can analyze evidence against contemporaneous documents.
CPR Part 24
The defence of honest opinion (Defamation Act 2013, s.3) requires the statement to be an opinion, indicate its basis, and be one an honest person could hold based on existing facts. It's defeated if the claimant proves the defendant didn't hold the opinion.
Defamation Act 2013, s.3
In honest opinion defences, the defendant doesn't need to prove every fact; one sufficiently supportive fact will suffice. However, omission of highly relevant facts can undermine the defence.
Riley v Murray [2023] EMLR 3
Outcomes
The Claimant's application to strike out the defence of honest opinion and for summary judgment was refused.
The court found the Defendant had a real prospect of successfully arguing honest opinion. The meaning of the article could reasonably refer to an offer to the government, not just the informal Sandringham offer. The core of the libel was the allegation of misleading the public, supported by the public statements issued on Harry's behalf, irrespective of the Sandringham offer. The court considered the public statements misleading and that an honest person could hold that opinion.