Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Hamilton v Al Fayed

[2000] 2 All ER 224

Case summary last updated at 17/01/2020 19:08 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Hamilton v Al Fayed

D claimed that P had accepted cash from him to ask questions in the House of Commons. D applied to have the claim struck out on the grounds that it would infringe parliamentary privilege. HL denied the striking out action, on the grounds that under s.13 of the defamation act, an MP could waive his right to privilege. Had the act not existed, the court would have struck out the action on the grounds that it would interfere with privilege (some of the evidence to be adduced was speeches from parliament) and it was for the parliamentary committee on standards to determine the facts.

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>