Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2005] QB 972

Facts

  • David Greene, a solicitor, brought a defamation claim against Associated Newspapers Ltd due to articles in the Daily Mail alleging unethical professional conduct.
  • Greene sought permission to make a statement in open court to vindicate his reputation; the defendant opposed, arguing the request was premature and unnecessary.
  • The Court of Appeal addressed the procedural requirements and the circumstances under which statements in open court may be allowed in defamation cases.
  • The court considered that the articles formed part of an ongoing investigation and that the defendant had not yet had a full opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Issues

  1. Whether a statement in open court should be permitted at an early stage of the defamation proceedings.
  2. Whether the statement would serve a legitimate purpose of public vindication for the claimant.
  3. Whether allowing the statement would prejudice the defendant's rights and undermine procedural fairness.
  4. Whether judicial discretion was appropriately exercised in permitting or refusing such applications.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal determined that Greene's application for a statement in open court was premature.
  • The court found that Greene had not demonstrated a sufficient need for immediate public vindication.
  • The court held that the defendant needed an opportunity to fully respond before such a statement could be considered.
  • The judgment emphasized that the appropriate remedy was to proceed to trial for a full examination and resolution.
  • The court reiterated that statements in open court should not be used as a tactical maneuver or substitute for trial without compelling reason.

Legal Principles

  • The primary purpose of a statement in open court is to provide public vindication for the claimant by effectively restoring reputation and acknowledging falsity.
  • Permission to make a statement in open court is discretionary and must be exercised with regard to the facts, nature of allegations, harm caused, and potential prejudice.
  • Procedural fairness requires that defendants have an opportunity to respond to applications for statements in open court.
  • Statements in open court should only be permitted when serving a legitimate need and not for tactical advantage.

Conclusion

This case clarifies that statements in open court in defamation proceedings are subject to judicial discretion and require a clear legitimate purpose. The procedure must ensure procedural fairness for defendants, with statements permitted only when truly necessary for public vindication, and not as a tactical device or substitute for trial.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal