THE HON. MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES Approved judgment Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2020] EWHC 2951 (QB) which the claimant has referred to “Jewish Nazis”, used the word “Zios” (which he knows is antisemitic: see paragraph 26 above) and, having done so, referred to collaboration with the Nazis, were antisemitic statements he made. 30. There are many other allegations made by the defendant in the amended defence in support of its honest opinion defence. However, many of the facts alleged post-date 27 February 2017, and were not therefore in existence at the date of publication of the First Article, or the date of the facts is not alleged, and it is unclear whether they were in existence on the date of publication or not. I cannot take these into account for the purpose of the defendant’s application. Likewise, I do not think it is relevant for the purposes of this application, to take into account Mr Speker’s point that the claimant is seeking to shut down the defendant, a charity which was set up to, and does, campaign against antisemitism. This is because, as Mr Mitchell submitted, this is not one of the facts and matters that the defendant has pleaded in paragraph 9 of its amended defence in support of its honest opinion defence. 31. Nevertheless, even putting all those matters on one side, I have formed the clear view that Mr Speker’s submissions are correct. The claimant’s tweets are determinative of the defendant’s summary judgment application. This is because an honest person plainly could express the opinion that the claimant was an antisemite based only on the tweets which he posted before 27 February 2017. The claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on this issue. On the basis of the admissions in the amended reply, the defendant can demonstrate that the third condition under section 3(4)(a) will be met. Malice 32. The next point is whether, in answer to this, the malice is properly pleaded for the purposes of section 3(5). The relevant allegations are at paragraph 22 of the amended reply: “[22.] Further or alternatively, in publishing the words complained of the defendant its servants or agents) did not hold the opinion that the claimant was an anti-semite. Whilst the defamatory articles are unattributed and the defendant has not disclosed their author(s), if required to specify a person for the purposes of section 3(5) Defamation Act 2013, the claimant identifies the defendant’s chief executive, Mr Gideon Falter: PARTICULARS (1) The defendant acted in retaliation and out of spite following the claimant’s change.org petition dated 6 February 2017 and complain to the Charity Commission dated 8 February 2017 seeking that the Charity Commission deregister it. 1 0