![David Lester (senior partner at Blythe Liggins), Darryl Barnes, Jagdeep Sandher (head of dispute resolution at Blythe Liggins)[4]](https://d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net/Pictures/274x183/4/2/8/116428_davidlesterseniorpartneratblytheligginsdarrylbarnesjagdeepsandherheadofdisputeresolutionatblytheliggins4_981603_crop.jpg)
A defamation claim brought by an MP expelled from the Conservative party against former health secretary Matthew Hancock can be amended after a judge described the current case as ‘defective’.
Hancock had applied to strike out Andrew Bridgen’s claim. Instead, Mrs Justice Steyn struck out five paragraphs from Bridgen’s particulars of claim.
The judge added: ‘Although the claimant’s pleading of his case on reference is defective, I will not strike out his claim, but will instead give him an opportunity to amend his particulars of claim to remedy the deficiencies I have identified.’
The case centres on a tweet published by Hancock which included a link to him asking his parliamentary question. It said: ‘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.’
The tweet did not name Bridgen. It was posted shortly before the Conservative Party withdrew the whip from Bridgen following a tweet earlier that day linking to an article about Covid vaccines.
The judgment in Andrew Bridgen MP v Matthew Hancock MP said Bridgen’s case on reference is dependent on reader’s of Hancock’s tweet having knowledge of other facts including the whip withdrawal less than two hours earlier, and that Bridgen had, a month earlier, raised questions in parliament about ‘purported Covid-19 vaccine harms’.
The judge said: ‘In my judgment, the claimant’s contention that this is an ordinary reference, rather than reference innuendo, case is misconceived.
‘The defendant is obviously right that if a claimant seeks to rely, for the purposes of establishing reference, on specific events that occurred in his life over a matter of hours prior to the publication of the words complained of, that is a reference innuendo case; and he has to comply with the pleading requirements for such a case.’
She added: ‘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.’
