Bridgen vs Hancock

This case concerned a libel claim brought by Mr. Andrew Bridgen against Mr. Matt Hancock over a tweet that allegedly defamed Mr. Bridgen by labeling his comments as antisemitic and anti-vax conspiracy theories.

TLDR:

• Mr. Bridgen filed a libel claim against Mr. Hancock for a tweet posted on January 11, 2023.
• The court had to determine the 'single natural and ordinary meaning' of the tweet.
• The court found that the tweet was largely an expression of opinion rather than an assertion of fact.

At the time of the tweet, both Mr. Bridgen and Mr. Hancock were Conservative Members of Parliament. Mr. Hancock had served as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, advocating for vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Bridgen, however, expressed concerns about the risks and side-effects of COVID-19 vaccination.

On January 11, 2023, Mr. Bridgen tweeted a link to an article suggesting adverse health effects from vaccination, commenting that it was 'the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.' Later that day, Mr. Hancock condemned these comments in Parliament and subsequently tweeted a video clip of his statement, labeling the comments as 'disgusting and dangerous anti-semitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories.'

Mr. Bridgen claimed that Mr. Hancock's tweet defamed him by suggesting he was an antisemite. The court had to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning of the tweet and whether it was an allegation of fact or an expression of opinion.

The court noted that the tweet's meaning had to be determined from the perspective of an ordinary, reasonable reader, considering the context of political speech and social media. The court found that the tweet was a reaction to Mr. Bridgen's comments and was primarily an expression of Mr. Hancock's opinion rather than an assertion of fact.

The court concluded that the tweet's reference to 'antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories' was understood as Mr. Hancock's strong opinion about the character of Mr. Bridgen's comments, rather than a factual statement about Mr. Bridgen's beliefs or character.

The court ruled that the tweet conveyed the meaning that an unnamed MP had made comments that were baseless, unscientific, dangerous, and offensive, including being antisemitic. The assertion that the MP had made such comments was a fact, but the characterization of those comments was an opinion.

Legal representatives: Mr. Christopher Newman (instructed by direct access) for the claimant, Mr. Aidan Eardley KC (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the defendant.

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mrs Justice Collins Rice

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1603 (KB)