THE HON. MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES Approved judgment Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2020] EWHC 2951 (QB) 6. Having determined the preliminary issues, on 15 February 2019 Nicklin J gave directions for the service of amended statements of case and, in accordance with the directions timetable set by the judge, an amended particulars of claim, amended defence and amended reply have all been served. Further, on 16 July 2019 the defendant served a Part 18 request for further information upon the claimant, which was answered on 12 August 2019. 7. On 28 April 2020 the defendant issued an application for summary judgment, alternatively that the claim be struck out. The defendant’s application 8. The defendant’s application notice seeks the following relief, namely: a. pursuant to CPR Part 24.2, there be summary judgment for the defendant on the defence of honest opinion under section 3(4)(a) of the Defamation Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) in respect of the meanings at paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.7 of the amended particulars of claim, which are the meanings determined by Nicklin J (and set out at paragraph 4(a) and (c) above); b. pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2) the claim, alternatively paragraphs 7.2 and 8 of the amended particulars of claim and paragraphs 22 (and sub-paragraphs thereof), 23.1, 25.1 and 26 (and sub-paragraphs thereof) of the amended reply be struck out; c. as a consequence of the rulings in paragraphs 8(a) and (b) above or that the claim is an abuse of process, there be judgment for the defendant overall; and d. costs. 9. The application is supported by the evidence in Part 10 of the application notice, together with a witness statement from Mr Gideon Falter, the defendant’s chief executive (“Mr Falter”), dated 20 April 2020. The claimant served a witness statement in answer to Mr Falter’s witness statement on 20 October 2020, which runs to some 184 paragraphs over 27 pages. The issues 10. At the hearing before me the defendant was represented by Mr Adam Speker QC and the claimant was represented by Mr David Mitchell. 11. The issues to be determined are as follows: a. The court, having found that the words complained of meant that the claimant was an antisemite and that that meaning was an opinion and the statement complained of indicated as much, whether the defendant is entitled to summary 3