Hamilton v Al Fayed (No. 1) [2001]

Facts

  • Hamilton made a defamation claim against Al Fayed, a member of Parliament, alleging corruption in accepting money to ask questions in parliament
  • Al Fayed claimed that Parliamentary privileges prevented such a claim being allowed

Issue

  • Could evidence from Parliamentary committee discussions be admitted

Decision

  • Yes, H’s claim succeeded

Reasoning

  • Although defamation is protected against in Parliament, evidence may still be used to support a claim not protected by Parliamentary privilege
RELATED CASE  Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank [2003]

Posted in Public Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 31st January 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy