The Court held that a proposed new imputation ('the plaintiff is a paedophile') was not 'substantially the same' as the imputations particularised in the concerns notice (which referred to 'inappropriate behaviour', 'danger to vulnerable people' and related concepts) for the purposes of s 12B(2)(b) of the Defamation Act 2005, and accordingly refused leave to amend the statement of claim. The Court accepted that imputations in a concerns notice may be read globally rather than only individually when assessing substantial similarity, but held that even on a global reading, the proposed imputation was fundamentally different in subject matter, far more injurious, and would require proof of materially different facts. The Court also held that seeking to engage s 12B(2)(b) through an amendment application is not an abuse of process, even where the application ultimately fails on its merits.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.