THE HON. MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES Approved judgment Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2020] EWHC 2951 (QB) 43. The defendant’s case on section 3(4)(a) is set out at paragraphs 12 to 13.3 of the amended defence. In particular, paragraph 13 alleges: “13. The third condition, under section 3(4) … is met by any or some of all of the following facts and matters which existed at the time the statement complained of was published, which remains online, and from which an honest person could have held the opinion that the claimant had lied to the Charity Commission when he claimed that the CAA was a right-wing political Zionist organisation that is not concerned with fascists who were anti-semitic Holocaust deniers. 13.1 Paragraphs 9.1 to 9.17.4 above are repeated and 15.1 and 15.2 below are repeated. 13.2 On a date unknown, the claimant told the Charity Commission that the CAA was not concerned with fascist groups who were Holocaust deniers. 13.3 The claimant is very interested in the defendant and what it says in its website. He would have read on the website that the defendant challenges neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists as part of its work. At the time the claimant first complained to the Charity Commission about the CAA, the defendant had recently launched a private prosecution against far-right Holocaust denier, Alison Chabloz; had informed the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) that it was intending to privately prosecute neo-Nazi leader Jack Renshaw unless it acted; and had successfully taken the CPS to judicial review for its failure to prosecute neo-Nazi leader, Jeremy Bedford-Turner. Amongst the articles published on the CAA website, which the claimant would have seen, the following about Neo-Nazis have been published: [the titles of nine such articles are then listed].” 44. The claimant does not dispute any of the particulars alleged in paragraph 13 of the amended defence, or that the articles refer to right-wing fascists. Rather the claimant denies “that the third condition of the defence (section 3(4) [of the 2013 Act]) is met by any, some or all of the particulars set out at paragraph 13 of the amended defence” and he alleges that an honest person’s opinion would be informed by a number of other matters he has set out at paragraph 25.2 of the amended reply. However, these other matters are nothing to the point given the nature of the test under section 3(4)(a). 45. Given there is no dispute that the claimant accepts he is very interested in the defendant and what it says in its website, that he would have read on the website that the defendant challenges neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists as part of its work, and that articles on the defendant’s website refer to right-wing fascists, in my judgment it is obvious that on 26 February 2017, the date the First Article was published, an honest person could express the opinion that the claimant had lied 1 4