AL RAJHI BANKING & INVESTMENT CORPORATION v The WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE SPRL [CA (Civil), 12/08/2004]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY |
| Judgment Date | 12 August 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWCA Civ 1305 |
| Docket Number | A2/2004/1105 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 12 August 2004 |
[2004] EWCA Civ 1305
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE EADY)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Sedley
A2/2004/1105
A2/2004/1106
MR D BROWNE QC (instructed by Harbottle & Lewis LLP, London WS1 1HP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MR RUSHBROOK AND MR WARD (instructed by Finers Stephens & Innocent, London W1W 5LS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
(Draft for approval)
Thursday, 12 August 2004
These libel actions are before the court this morning for two principal purposes. One is to deal so far as possible with outstanding elements in the applications for permission to appeal, outstanding in the sense that they are elements on which I have so far refused permission to appeal but for which the application stands renewed. The other is to use the presence of the parties, and I am extremely grateful to all of them for having attended for this purpose, in order to make the most useful arrangements that I can for the hearing of the appeals.
In case, 2004/1105, Al Rajhi Banking Corporation v TheWall Street Journal, Mr Desmond Browne QC has renewed his application for permission to appeal which I initially refused on the papers. Having read his further submissions pursuant to the new Practice Direction I am persuaded that it is a proper case for the grant of permission to appeal. In the associated proceedings 2004/1106 there is no need for any order because the costs are entirely consequential. The same is true in 2004/1108. The costs there too are consequential on the matter on which in 2004/1107 I have granted permission to appeal.
The other outstanding application for permission to appeal is in relation to the presumption of falsity in Mohammed Jameel v Wall Street Journal, 2004/0221. That is not an application which it seems to me right to deal with today. I refused permission to appeal because there was no plea of justification in that case. By contrast, I granted permission in 2004/0725 where there was a plea of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Careif Ltd and Another v Jamaica Observer Ltd
... ... 1] An order pursuant to rule 69.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2002 [CPR] as to whether the ... Whether Careif Ltd was an alternative investment club under investigation by the FSC, and whether ... In Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corporation v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2003] EWCH 1358 , (paragraph) ... ...