Mr Andrew Bridgen v Mr Matt Hancock

Hearing date: 12 th March 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 12pm on 14 April 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

Mr Bridgen brings a libel claim over a comment Mr Hancock tweeted out on 11 ^th January 2023.

By the present application, Mr Hancock seeks an order terminating the claim forthwith, without permitting it to go to trial (or, in the alternative, partially striking it out).

Background

At the time, both Mr Bridgen and Mr Hancock were Conservative Members of Parliament. Mr Hancock had served as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care from 2018 to 2021, a period which saw the onset of the national Covid emergency, the rapid UK development of vaccines, and the launch of mass vaccination programmes. Mr Hancock was, and remained, a strong advocate for the individual and public benefits of vaccination. Mr Bridgen was increasingly concerned about the risks and side-effects of Covid vaccination, and, as time went on, that the vaccination programmes might be unethical and unduly influenced by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. At the end of 2022, he raised the matter in Parliament, including in an adjournment debate.

On the morning of 11 ^th January 2023, Mr Bridgen tweeted out a link to an article suggesting a US study indicated links between vaccination and a range of serious adverse health effects. His tweet commented: ‘ As one consultant cardiologist said to me this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust’.

At Prime Minister's Questions later that day, Mr Hancock asked:

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the disgusting, antisemitic, anti-vax conspiracy theories that have been promulgated online this morning are not only deeply offensive, but anti-scientific and have no place in this House or in our wider society?

The Prime Minister replied:

Can I join with my Rt Hon Friend in completely condemning those types of comments that we saw this morning in the strongest possible terms. Obviously, it is utterly unacceptable to make linkages and use language like that, and I'm determined that the scourge of antisemitism is eradicated. It has absolutely no place in our society and I know the previous few years have been challenging for the Jewish community and I never want them to experience anything like that ever again.

Immediately afterwards, Mr Hancock tweeted out a video clip of that exchange, underneath the text:

The disgusting and dangerous anti-semitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society.

This is the tweet of which Mr Bridgen complains in these proceedings.

Mr Bridgen had the Conservative whip removed as a result of his own tweet of that morning. The Chief Whip released a press statement the same day:

Andrew Bridgen has crossed a line, causing great offence in the process. As a nation we should be very proud of what has been achieved through the vaccine programme. The vaccine is the best defence against Covid that we have. Misinformation about the vaccine causes harm and costs lives. I am therefore removing the whip from Andrew Bridgen with immediate effect, pending a formal investigation.

Mr Bridgen continued to sit as an independent MP and fought the 2024 general election on that basis, but lost his seat. Mr Hancock left Parliament in 2024 without seeking re-election.

Litigation history

Mr Bridgen issued his libel claim on 19 ^th May 2023. He says its motivation, and focus, was the exception he took to what he considered the smear of antisemitism. He makes no other complaint of Mr Hancock's tweet. He told me, through Mr Newman of Counsel, that he had been looking for swift justice to clear his name in good time before the general election. The claim, and particulars of claim, were served on Mr Hancock on 12 ^th September 2023.

Mr Hancock considered the claim defectively pleaded. Correspondence between the legal teams ensued, and the parties could not agree a way forward. On 7 ^th December 2023, Mr Hancock issued two applications: (a) to have the claim struck out as not pleading a viable case, and (b) for a trial of the defamation ‘preliminary issues’.

(a) The 2023/4 strike-out application

These were not necessarily alternative plans. Mr Hancock told me, through Mr Eardley KC, that the purpose of the strike-out application was, if not the termination of the claim, at least bringing the compulsion of the court to bear to ensure that the claim was pleaded with the proper clarity required to make it fair to expect it to be defended. And that is what the records of those proceedings confirm. The possibility of the court ordering amendment of pleadings rather than (immediate) termination of a claim is always present on a strike-out application in any event. Indeed, if a claim can fairly be rectified and allowed to go forward, then generally speaking that is what a court should order. (I consider the approach to strike-out applications more fully below.)

But because the possibility of termination is also always present on a strike-out application, Nicklin J directed that the strike-out application be heard first, and the claim's viability decided one way or the other, before the ‘preliminary issues’ trial was considered for listing.

The strike-out application was brought on a specific basis – that the particulars of claim set out no proper case that the tweet complained of ‘ was published of and concerning the claimant’ – that is, on the issue of ‘ reference’. Mr Hancock's tweet did not mention Mr Bridgen by name, and Mr Bridgen needed to set out precisely on what basis he claimed that it would be read and understood to be about him.

Where an alleged libel does not name or identify a claimant on its face, there are two possible routes to establishing reference. The first, ‘ordinary reference’, arises where ‘ the words used are such as would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the claimant to believe that he was the person referred to’ ( Dyson Technology Ltd v Channel Four [2023] EWCA Civ 884 at [35]). The second, ‘reference innuendo’, arises where at least some readers of the alleged libel, because of particular facts known to them, are able to put two and two together and identify what has been published as being about the claimant. Libel pleadings must identify which basis, or bases, are relied on, and the alleged facts supporting that basis.

The strike-out application came before Steyn J on 1 ^st March 2024. Mr Hancock argued the claim's defect was mentioning ‘innuendo’ but setting out no basis on which ‘innuendo reference’ could properly be established; and Mr Bridgen had no real prospect of establishing ‘ordinary reference’ on any basis. Mr Bridgen argued he had a real prospect of successfully establishing ‘ordinary reference’ and the claim could be cured by removing the reference to innuendo. In her judgment handed down on 20 ^th March, Steyn J agreed with Mr Eardley KC's submissions that Mr Bridgen had no real prospect of establishing ‘ordinary reference’. She concluded ( Bridgen v Hancock [2024] EWHC 623 (KB) at [75]):

I agree with the defendant that, as presently formulated, an essential element of the cause of action is not made out on the claimant's pleading. The claimant's pleading of reference is defective. However, the pleading is not only capable of being cured, it is highly likely that the claimant would have little difficulty establishing reference innuendo. In those circumstances, despite the claimant's disavowal of any case based on reference innuendo, I have no doubt that the claimant should be given an opportunity to amend. That is an error of analysis which does not warrant striking out the claim. This conclusion does not render this application unreasonable. Reference is an essential element of the cause of action and, despite the defendant's repeated requests to the claimant to amend to provide a proper pleading of reference, the claimant has failed to do so. I agree with Mr Eardley that the defendant is entitled to receive a properly articulated pleading.

In other words, the claim had been liable to be struck out as disclosing no viable case on reference, but Mr Bridgen had a real prospect of a successful case on ‘innuendo reference’ and should be allowed a chance to amend his particulars of claim to set one out properly. Amended particulars of claim were filed (by consent) on 1 ^st May 2024.

(b) The trial of preliminary issues

The trial of defamation preliminary issues was listed before me on 12 ^th June 2024. This is a conventional stage in a libel action in which the ‘meaning’ of the publication complained of is brought into focus for litigation purposes. The ‘preliminary issues’ in this connection are to do with the inherent qualities of the publication complained of, decided without external evidence but simply on analysis of what has been published. The determination of preliminary issues has important consequences for a libel action, including by confirming the defences that may or may not potentially be available. I handed down my decision on 24 ^th June 2024.

My conclusions on the preliminary issues were ( Bridgen v Hancock [2024] EWHC 1603 (KB)):

Decision

[46] The single natural and ordinary...