THE HON. MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES Approved judgment Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2020] EWHC 2951 (QB) Definition of Anti-Semitism (“IDA”)1 prevents criticism of Israel and that that meaning was an opinion and the statement complained of indicated as much, whether the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the basis that, on any admitted fact which existed at the time (26 February 2017, being the date the First Article was published), an honest person could hold the said opinion about the claimant. c. The court, having found that the words complained of meant that the claimant had lied to the Charity Commission when he claimed that the defendant was a right-wing political Zionist organisation that is not concerned with fascist groups who were antisemitic Holocaust deniers and that that meaning was an opinion and the statement complained of indicated as much, whether the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the basis that, on any admitted fact which existed at the time (26 February 2017, being the date the First Article was published), an honest person could hold the said opinion about the claimant. d. Whether the malice pleas at paragraphs 22 to 22(6)(d), 23.1, 25.1 and 26 (and sub-paragraphs thereof) of the amended reply should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2). e. Whether the data protection and misuse of private information pleas should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b). 12. In response to these issues the claimant maintains that the dispute between the parties is not suitable for summary determination and requires investigation at trial. This is because the facts relied on by the defendant in support of its honest opinion defence are “not objective and true facts upon which an honest person could hold the relevant opinion”, the malice plea is properly pleaded and requires determination at trial and the abuse of process challenge is unarguable. Relevant law 13. There was no dispute between the parties in relation to the relevant law. Rather, the issue was how it should be applied in relation to the undisputed facts of this case. Procedure 14. It was common ground that: a. The court can grant summary judgment under CPR Part 24.2 to a defendant on the basis that there is no real prospect that a defence of honest opinion will fail: Morgan v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 3960 (QB), Nicklin J at [46]; Carruthers v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 33 (QB), Nicklin J (“Carruthers”) at [24] to [33]. Summary judgment can also 1 Also referred to in places as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance or IHRA definition. 5