Hamilton v Al Fayed [2001]
Share
Hamilton v Al Fayed [2001] 1 AC 395 revolves around allegations of corruption made by Al Fayed against Hamilton, a former Member of Parliament (MP). Al Fayed claimed on television that Hamilton had engaged in corrupt practices by accepting cash in exchange for parliamentary actions. Subsequently, Hamilton filed a defamation lawsuit against Al Fayed.
Al Fayed sought to stay the defamation claim by asserting that the court could not examine parliamentary proceedings due to the doctrine of Parliamentary privilege. This privilege, according to Lord Browne-Wilkinson, serves as a blanket prohibition on the court's examination of parliamentary proceedings, particularly questioning whether Parliament had been deliberately misled.
To address the potential unfairness faced by defendants in defamation cases involving MPs, Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 came into play. This section enables MPs to waive their Parliamentary privilege in specific cases, particularly those involving the disproval of defamation claims. It was enacted to allow MPs to clear their names without facing automatic stay orders due to privilege.
The court, in its decision, denied Al Fayed's application for a stay. It emphasised that without the provisions of Section 13, the interference with Parliamentary privilege would have necessitated a stay in the proceedings. However, Section 13 was considered a complete answer to the issue at hand, allowing Hamilton the ability to waive his privilege and enabling the court to examine parliamentary proceedings in the defamation case.
Despite Al Fayed losing the stay application, he ultimately won the defamation case. Hamilton, by waiving his privilege under Section 13, participated in a trial where he was proven to be corrupt, as indicated in Hamilton v Al Fayed (No 4) [2001] EMLR 15. This underscores the significance of the legislative provision in achieving a balance between Parliamentary privilege and the pursuit of justice in defamation cases involving MPs.
Al Fayed sought to stay the defamation claim by asserting that the court could not examine parliamentary proceedings due to the doctrine of Parliamentary privilege. This privilege, according to Lord Browne-Wilkinson, serves as a blanket prohibition on the court's examination of parliamentary proceedings, particularly questioning whether Parliament had been deliberately misled.
To address the potential unfairness faced by defendants in defamation cases involving MPs, Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 came into play. This section enables MPs to waive their Parliamentary privilege in specific cases, particularly those involving the disproval of defamation claims. It was enacted to allow MPs to clear their names without facing automatic stay orders due to privilege.
The court, in its decision, denied Al Fayed's application for a stay. It emphasised that without the provisions of Section 13, the interference with Parliamentary privilege would have necessitated a stay in the proceedings. However, Section 13 was considered a complete answer to the issue at hand, allowing Hamilton the ability to waive his privilege and enabling the court to examine parliamentary proceedings in the defamation case.
Despite Al Fayed losing the stay application, he ultimately won the defamation case. Hamilton, by waiving his privilege under Section 13, participated in a trial where he was proven to be corrupt, as indicated in Hamilton v Al Fayed (No 4) [2001] EMLR 15. This underscores the significance of the legislative provision in achieving a balance between Parliamentary privilege and the pursuit of justice in defamation cases involving MPs.