Noel Clark lost the Court of Appeal related to demanding defamation against the Guardian publisher.
The 49 -year -old is to sue Guardian News and Media (GNM) on a series of articles, including articles from April 2021 that 20 women have known Clark with professional qualities had made allegations of sexual misconduct.
The former doctor, the star, who denies these allegations, submits a demand for defamation and data against the publisher, claiming in a statement at that time that he “he strongly denies” any sexual misconduct or criminal violations.
GNM said it would defend its reports as correct and in the public interest.
In a hearing on Thursday, Clark’s lawyers made an appeal after a judge previously said that the actor asked to amend his demand and add six other defenders to be heard after the defamation trial, which is scheduled to start on March 3.
In addition to increasing his demand for special compensation to more than 70 million pounds, the actor wants to submit a claim about allegations that many people conspired against him to cause “irreplaceable damage” using allegations appropriate to misconduct or sexual assault.
His lawyer Philip Williams told the London Court of Appeal that the actor’s demand for illegal conspiracy “will not see today” if the request is heard after the main trial.
But on Friday’s ruling, three judges rejected Clark’s appeal.
Lord Al -Adl and Warbi said: “The plaintiff did not pass away from that of proving that the judge’s decision offends the principles of natural justice, or deprives him of any opportunity to a fair trial to demand a conspiracy, or remove his chances of legal justification.”
The judge, who was sitting with Lord Justice Popyliol and the Lord, Justice Philips, said that he would be “fictional” that he would expect the six additional defendants to defend the legal claim in the trial if he joined the case just a few weeks ago.
Lord Al -Adl continued and Warbi: “In my opinion, the judge’s approach was fair and its procedural assessments were all legitimate.”
In January, Clark’s lawyers presented a presentation on the defense case in GNM, claiming that the publisher had deleted some messages and made a sign of signal.
Judge Mrs. Justice Stein rejected this offer in a ruling on February 5, adding that the “very dangerous claim” that the evidence was fabricated “has no basis.”
On Friday’s ruling, Lord Al -Adl said that the decision is subject to appeal and that Clark’s lawyer is planning to make an attempt to reopen the offer.
And Lord controversy Warbi added: “As matters stand, the trial of responsibility remains on March 3, 2025.”
After the ruling, a spokesman for the guardian He said: “We welcome the decision of the Court of Appeal unanimously.
“Our reports on Mr. Clark in 2021 were based on the accounts of 20 courageous women. After we published our first article, more women advanced.
“In the trial, 32 witnesses were appointed to testify against Mr. Clark under the oath. We look forward to the judge hearing the evidence.”
Email pi***@pr**********.uk To refer to errors, give the story tips or send a message to publish on the “Letters Page” blog
