Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE LAWS
- LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
- LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Defamation Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the appellant's defamation and malicious falsehood claims were struck out by Tugendhat J and summary judgment was entered for the respondent, who had testified before the CMSC about FIFA's conduct. The appellant's proposed action arose from references made outside Parliament to the respondent's testimony. The core issue debated was the shield of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 protecting these external references. The appellate court upheld the summary judgment, holding that Article 9 does protect such references and found no merit in the appellant's claims of malice or website publication.
Judgment
LORD JUSTICE LAWS :
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal, with permission granted by Maurice Kay LJ on 20 June 2013, against the judgment of Tugendhat J ([2013] EWHC 142) given on 1 February 2013 by which he struck out the appellant’s claim in defamation and malicious falsehood and entered summary judgment for the defendant, the respondent in this court. Tugendhat J introduced the case at the beginning of his judgment as follows:
“1… On 10 May 2011 the Defendant gave evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons (‘the CMSC’). I shall refer to this as the Parliamentary evidence.
The claim is not brought on the Parliamentary evidence, and could not be, because anything said in Parliament is protected by absolute privilege. But the Parliamentary evidence has been referred to outside Parliament, and the claims in this action arise out of those subsequent references.”
The principal question in the case is whether these “subsequent references” are immune to the appellant’s claim by force of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689. As is well known Article 9 provides:
“That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament”.
THE FACTS
The respondent had been Chairman of the English Football Association (the FA) and also of the England 2018 Football World Cup bid. His appearance before the CMSC took place in the course of the Committee’s inquiry into domestic football governance, which had been announced in December 2010 following the failure of the England bid. Tugendhat J set out material extracts from the evidence given by the respondent to the CMSC, as pleaded in paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim:
“[The defendant]: … The second area is about the conduct of some members of the FIFA executive… I would, if it was thought helpful by the Committee, go to the specifics of some things which were put to me personally, sometimes in the presence of others, which in my view did not represent proper and ethical behaviour on the part of those members of the committee. If that is helpful it is probably high time it was ventilated.
Q48 Chair: … That would be helpful, and I think the Committee would like to hear it.
[The defendant]: … The fourth example to bring to your attentions, Chairman, is this. We had a number of conversations with [the claimant], telephone conversations for the most part. He was eager to secure a match