Liam Fox v Harvey Boulter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Bean |
| Judgment Date | 04 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1435 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ12X002414 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 04 June 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 1435 (QB)
Mr Justice Bean
Case No: HQ12X002414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
William McCormick QC and Jonathan Barnes (instructed by PSB Law) for the Claimant
Matthew Nicklin QC (instructed by DLA Piper) for the Defendant
Hearing Date: 15 May 2013
The Claimant is the Member of Parliament for North Somerset. From 12 th May 2010 until 14 th October 2011 he was Secretary of State for Defence.
The Defendant is a British businessman principally resident in Dubai (but who, according to the Particulars of Claim, also maintains a residence in the UK) and is Chief Executive Officer of Porton Capital Inc, a Cayman Islands based legal entity which conducts business in the UK, Dubai and other jurisdictions.
In June 2011 the Defendant was the subject of widely reported allegations which he has characterised as being to the effect that he was guilty, or there were strong grounds to suspect that he was guilty, of an unlawful campaign of blackmail against the US corporation 3M Co. in an effort to extort millions of dollars in settlement of a hopeless piece of litigation. The Allegations arose following the Defendant's sending of two emails to 3M's lawyers on 18 th and 19 th June 2011. The allegations were the basis of a civil claim for blackmail brought against the Defendant by 3M. The Defendant counter-sued 3M for libel in England.
Some months later the Defendant was interviewed by Sky News or Sky Television. Short extracts from that interview were broadcast on Sky News on 7 th November 2011. A longer version was posted on Sky News' website, in a posting which remained there until it was removed in October 2012.
The relevant section of the broadcast consisted of the Defendant being interviewed in a television studio with a large picture of the Claimant in the background. The headline on screen is "Breaking News — Fox Resignation"; below this is at first the caption " Ex-Defence Secretary Liam Fox And His Friend Adam Werritty Could Be Forced To Appear In Court", then "Businessman Harvey Boulter Calls For Liam Fox And Adam Werritty To Answer Questions In Court Over The Nature Of Their Working Relationship." (Like editorial comment or sub-editors' headlines in a newspaper, these captions are not the responsibility of the Defendant.)
What Mr Boulter actually said, in the edited extracts which were broadcast, was this:
"We plan on calling Dr. Liam Fox and his pal Adam Werritty to give evidence in some of these ongoing legal disputes so they can tell the truth and so we can debunk these baseless allegations against me…[at this point there is an obvious "join", but with almost no pause]….It does warrant some pretty hard questions being asked and at some point they have to come forward and answer some of those tough questions. [another join without a pause]…..Now I am concerned myself that I shared a considerable amount of information with somebody who purported to be an advisor to the Minister, part of the Ministry of Defence. And clearly he wasn't. So I have no clue where that sensitive information has gone."
The website publication consisted of the following, under the heading "Fox And Werritty 'To Be Court Witnesses'" (the numbering is added):
"(1) The Dubai businessman at the heart of Liam Fox's departure from government wants to force the former defence secretary and his friend and self-styled adviser Adam Werritty to answer questions in open court as to the exact nature of their much-criticised working relationship.
(2) Harvey Boulter, who had a meeting with Dr Fox brokered by Mr Werritty, intends to subpoena both men to appear as he counter-sues US technology giant 3M in the British courts.
(3) The Prime Minister had said that all questions about Mr Werritty, his numerous visits to the Ministry of Defence, his trips overseas, and business cards which claimed he was an adviser to Dr Fox, would be answered — but a Cabinet Office-led investigation left many dissatisfied.
(4) Dr Fox resigned as Defence Secretary on October 14, following weeks of questions and speculation.
(5) Speaking exclusively to Sky News, Mr Boulter said: "We plan on calling Dr Liam Fox and his pal Adam Werritty to give evidence in some of these ongoing legal disputes so they can tell the truth and so we can debunk these baseless allegations against me.
(6) "This will also shine a spotlight on some of the murkier side of politics and lobbying group, and some of its connections into the US.
(7) "For instance, Atlantic Bridge, Fox's so-called charity which looks like a political lobbying group, and some of its connections into the US.
(8) "I don't know what we will find at the moment but there are a lot of unanswered questions and until some of those questions get answered we will have to keep looking" he added.
(9) If Mr Boulter is successful it would be the first time Mr Werritty would be required to answer questions in public as to why he was given unprecedented access to the then Defence Secretary, and whether or not, as some have alleged, he was pushing a right wing Atlanticist foreign policy at Dr Fox's request.
(10) Mr Boulter said he felt "defrauded" by Mr Werritty's claim to be an advisor to Dr Fox.
(11) "It does warrant some pretty hard questions being asked, and at some point they have to come forward and answer some of those tough questions," he said.
(12) "I am concerned myself that I shared a considerable amount of information with somebody who purported to be an adviser to the minister, part of the Ministry of Defence and clearly he wasn't — and so I have no clue where that sensitive information has gone and I personally feel that I've been defrauded.
(13) Dr Fox has previously said he would be happy to travel to the US to speak in any legal action there.
(14) "They have stated they will be willing to come forth and give evidence in the US," Mr Boulter said.
(15) "I hope when they get there they can put their hand on the bible and tell the truth — and I suspect they will be forced to come if they do not do it willingly.
(16) Mr Boulter's company the Porton Group is currently in a legal battle with 3M bought MoD technology it was claimed could detect the MRSA superbug.
(16) Following the meeting between Dr Fox and Mr Boulter, it was reported that the businessman wrote two emails in which he threatened that the British Government could reconsider the knighthood granted to 3M's British chief executive if the case was not settled.
(17) On Monday, Mr Boulter claimed a victory in his fight with 3M when the High
Court in London found 3M was "in material breach of its obligation" under an agreement to actively market the MRSA test, Baclite
(18) "I am delighted that we have been vindicated in our attempt to force 3M to face up to their responsibilities," he said.
(19) "But the victims here are those infected with MRSA. A weapon in that fight was wrongfully abandoned by 3M.
(20) "This is a question of trust and honour which in my opinion seems to have been sadly lacking in 3M's behaviour.
(21) "The judge has made it quite clear that 3M did not live up to its promises," he added.
(22) Kevin Jones MP, Labour's shadow defence minister, responding to the news that Mr Boulter intends to subpoena both Liam Fox and Adam Werritty, said: "There are big, unanswered questions remaining over Liam Fox and Adam Werritty's activities.
(23) "It is regrettable that US courts rather than the UK Government may reveal the full facts. The Prime Minister's investigation was inadequate and there is much evidence which merits real scrutiny.
(24) "It is important that we understand what happened at one of the Government's most sensitive departments for the 18 months Dr Fox was in office, in order to be confident that similar activities will never take place again. The Government should have a full and thorough investigation".
On the morning of the hearing Mr Nicklin QC for the Defendant handed in a letter served on the Claimant's solicitors the previous day, stating that the number of individual hits on the relevant website page during the entire period for which it had been posted on the Sky News website had been 3,451. There had been no opportunity for the Claimant's legal team to investigate or challenge it. Mr McCormick QC for the Claimant did not seek an adjournment and it would have been disproportionate to have done so. He suggested that I should treat the figure with caution. I accept it for the purposes of the present hearing, but it would be open to challenge at a trial of quantum or any other remaining issue.
The following are the passages complained of in the Amended Particulars of Claim. All of them were in the website version, but only the two sections in italics were in the broadcast extracts:
'We plan on calling Dr Liam Fox and his pal Adam Werritty to give evidence in some of these ongoing legal disputes so they can tell the truth and so we can debunk these baseless allegations against me.
This will also shine a spotlight on some of the murkier side of politics and lobbying and we need to get into some of those aspects in a little more detail.
For instance, Atlantic Bridge, Fox's so-called charity which looks like a political lobbying group, and some of its connections into the US.
I don't know what we will find at the moment but there are a lot of unanswered questions and until some of those questions are answered we will have to keep looking.…
It does warrant some pretty hard questions being asked, and at some point they have to come forward and answer some of those tough questions.…
They have stated they will be willing to come forth and give evidence in the US.
I hope when they get there they can put their hand on the Bible and tell the truth — and I suspect they will be forced to come if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold Mballe Sube v News Group Newspapers Ltd
...of universal notoriety … that is to say matters which any intelligent viewer or reader may be expected to know” (see, eg, Fox v Boulter [2013] EWHC 1435 [16]). The principle is clear, but I am not persuaded that it has the relevance for which Mr Engelman contends. The matter of universal no......
-
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7)
...Fink (1946) 74 CLR 127 Flegg v Hallett [2015] QSC 167 Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] 2 AC 273 at [8]; 4 All ER 913 Fox v Boulter [2013] EWHC 1435 (QB) Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Habib v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 619 Haertsch v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 182......
-
Scarsdale Grange LLP t/a Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home v Jpimedia Nsmy Ltd
...knowledge, and its applicability to the determination of the natural and ordinary meaning, was considered by Bean J in Fox v Boulter [2013] EWHC 1435 (QB) at [15]–[16]: “15. The meanings of words for the purposes of defamation are of two kinds: the natural and ordinary meaning, and an innu......
-
Richard Millett v The Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn MP
...Counsel for Mr. Millett to certain observations in relation to a preliminary issue regarding an innuendo meaning in Fox v Boulter [2013] EWHC 1435 (QB) at para. [20]. It might be suggested that a different approach was there being adopted to that in 41 Insofar as there is a difference, the......