My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lester. It is possible that the House may remember the contribution that I made to the first debate when I drew the House’s attention to the protocol, which does very much what the amendment seeks to do. Under the current law it is perfectly possible, and indeed it happens on a regular basis, that a court will rule on a preliminary basis and will strike out claims, either pursuant to the CPR or under the inherent jurisdiction. They will manage the case so that preliminary matters are heard—for example, an issue as to meaning—without a full-scale trial. Judges and masters are experienced in dealing with this, and that is a matter that should be left to the protocol and to the masters to develop as a matter of practice. With respect, it is not a matter that should be put in the Bill.
Defamation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Faulks
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 February 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Defamation Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
743 c188 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2013-11-20 10:12:10 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-02-05/13020568000012
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-02-05/13020568000012
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-02-05/13020568000012