Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock has lost his bid to have a libel claim brought against him by MP Andrew Bridgen dismissed.
Mr. Bridgen is seeking to “clear his name” after he was allegedly accused of anti-Semitism in a “malicious” social media post by his former Conservative Party colleague Mr. Hancock, who he claims has “a motive to discredit” him.
Mr. Bridgen, the MP for North West Leicestershire, welcomed the judgment, saying it would “allow this important case to continue to trial,” and claimed that Mr. Hancock had lost a “high-risk” strategy in attempting to have the case struck out.
He is bringing his case for defamation over a post Mr. Hancock made on Jan. 11, 2023 on X, then known as Twitter, that allegedly referenced a post Mr. Bridgen had made shortly beforehand.
At the application to strike out the case in February, the High Court judge heard that on the morning of Jan. 11, Mr. Bridgen shared a link to an article “concerning data about deaths and other adverse reactions linked to Covid vaccines,” and stated, “As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust.”
Shortly after 11 a.m., Conservative Chief Whip Simon Hart announced that Mr. Bridgen had been expelled from the party for “having crossed a line” with his post.
Less than two hours later, following a similar remark he made during Prime Minister’s Question Time, Mr. Hancock wrote on X that “disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society.”
‘Seriously Defamatory and Untrue’
Mr. Bridgen claims that “every person reading the tweet knew it was about me,” that it was “seriously defamatory and untrue,” and intended to cause “grievous harm” to his reputation, the court heard.Mr. Hancock did not appear in person at the hearing, but his lawyers argued the MP for West Suffolk, who was kicked out of the Conservative Party for his appearance on reality show “I’m a Celebrity ... Get Me Out Of Here,” had not specifically named Mr. Bridgen in his post and that it could have been referring to another MP.
Lawyers for Mr. Hancock, led by Aidan Eardley, KC, said the claim should be thrown out as it did not have “a realistic prospect of success” and because of the “lack of a properly articulated case.”
Mr. Bridgen’s barrister, Christopher Newman, countered that his client had gained for himself a “reputation” as an outspoken critic of the vaccines and that the timing of the post from Mr. Hancock—within hours of a well-reported announcement that Mr. Bridgen had lost the Tory whip—left no room for doubt in the mind of any “reasonable person” to whom the post referred.
Mr. Newman told the High Court that, as he had heavily promoted the vaccine rollout as health secretary, Mr. Hancock’s actions were “activated by malice” and “he was willing to break the law because he has a motive to discredit Mr. Bridgen.”
In a ruling on Wednesday, Mrs. Justice Steyn “struck out” certain parts of Mr. Bridgen’s case but did not dismiss the whole claim, instead giving the MP the opportunity to make amendments and “remedy the deficiencies.”
‘More Particulars Needed’
The judgment found that Mr. Bridgen needed to make clear how people would have reached the conclusion that Mr. Hancock was directing the post at him.“It is clear that if the claimant contends that readers with knowledge of specific facts would have read the publication as referring to him, he must give sufficient particulars of the facts on which he relies, and make plain his case as to the existence of persons who by reason of their knowledge of those facts linked the words complained of to him.”
The judge found, “There could be no objection to the claimant pleading that the defendant’s parliamentary question, to which he provided a link in his Tweet, was about the claimant and concerned the claimant’s Tweet, and that would have been understood by people who were aware of the specific facts relied on.”
The judgment concludes, “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.”
Mr. Bridgen shared a statement from his legal team on X, saying: “Mr. Bridgen welcomes the decision of Mrs. Justice Steyn to allow this important case to continue to a trial.
“A strike out is a high-risk strategy often used by defendants who are worried about the prospect of a trial, and in this case it failed, thus making clear that there is nothing wrong with the substance of the claim.”
“The tweet Mr. Bridgen put out regarding vaccine harms and excess deaths in Jan. 2023 which resulted in his expulsion from the Conservative Party was not just not anti-semitic, it was true and based on evidence, evidence which gets stronger by the day.
“Mr. Bridgen hopes the Government will take note of this judgment and suspend the experimental, emergency use mRNA vaccines with immediate effect.”
Mr. Hancock also issued a brief statement on X, saying: “Delighted the court found Andrew Bridgen’s libel claim against me to be ‘defective’.
“If he repleads his claim, then we will fight that too, and on the basis of the judgment I’m highly confident we'll win and seek full costs. Mr Bridgen should stop wasting court time.”
Mr. Bridgen briefly joined Laurence Fox’s Reclaim Party after he was expelled by the Conservatives, but left citing “differences in direction.” He launched a crowdfunding campaign for his legal fees after Mr. Hancock ignored his request to apologise to him and take down the allegedly defamatory X post “within three days.”
