His Highness Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdullah Al Alaoui of Morocco v Elaph Publishing Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Dingemans,Mr Justice Dingemans |
| Judgment Date | 16 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 2021 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 16 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ1XD04187 |
[2015] EWHC 2021 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Dingemans
Case No: HQ1XD04187
Justin Rushbrooke QC and Richard Munden (instructed by Lee & Thompson) for the Claimant
David Glen (instructed by Payne Hicks Beach) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 8 July 2015
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Introduction
This is a libel claim brought by the Claimant His Highness Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah Al Alaoui of Morocco ("Moulay Hicham") against the Defendant Elaph Publishing Limited ("Elaph") in respect of an article published in Arabic on its news website on 8 th and 9 th October 2014. Elaph is a company incorporated in England and Wales. The article was removed following a complaint by Prince Moulay Hicham's solicitors on 9 th October 2014.
I gave judgment on 24 April 2015 in relation to certain pleaded meanings of the article. The judgment is at [2015] EWHC 1084 (QB), and I will not repeat the contents of the article or that judgment.
After that judgment the Claimant sought permission to amend the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim to plead a new meaning set out in paragraph 6.1 of the proposed amended Particulars of Claim, and to add in a claim under the Data Protection Act 1998. The issues addressed by this judgment are: (1) whether the Claimant should have permission to amend to plead the new meaning; and (2) whether the Claimant should have permission to amend to add in the claim under the Data Protection Act.
No permission to amend to plead new meaning
The legal principles relevant to meaning were set out in my first judgment and I have not repeated them. In my judgment the new suggested pleaded meaning is not capable of bearing a meaning defamatory of the Claimant. This is because it is not enough that the words should damage the Claimant in the eyes of a section of the public only, see Modi v Clarke [2011] EWCA Civ 937. The article does suggest that Moulay Hicham, a cousin of the King, was plotting, scheming and weaving machinations against the King of Morocco, and suggests that such conduct was wrongful. However whether such conduct is wrongful depends on the views of that section of the public interested in the politics of Morocco. It is not, in my judgment, capable of being defamatory of someone to say that they are plotting, scheming or weaving machinations against the King for the reasons given in Modi v Clarke.
In my judgment both the original suggested meanings in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.3 and the new meaning have the appearance of contrived meanings, fashioned so that an action in defamation can be pursued when (as appears from paragraph 22 of the original judgment) Moulay Hicham's real complaint is that the article was inaccurate.
Permission to amend and bring Data Protection Act claim
Moulay Hicham applies to bring a claim under the Data Protection Act claiming that there has been unfair and unlawful processing of data because the story was inaccurate and infringed relevant data protection principles. Claims for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HH Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah Al Alaoui of Morocco v Elaph Publishing Ltd
...IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION The Hon Mr Justice Dingemans [2015] EWHC 1084 (QB) [2015] EWHC 2021 (QB) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Justin Rushbrooke QC and Richard Munden (instructed by Lee & Thompson) for the Appellan......