THE HON. MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES Approved judgment Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2020] EWHC 2951 (QB) in that he must be shown to be dishonest and the particulars must be more probative of the existence of dishonesty than its non-existence. b. Paragraphs 22(1) to (4) are mere assertion and provide no support for the plea that Mr Falter did not hold the opinion expressed, namely that the claimant was an antisemite. c. Paragraph 22(1), namely acting in retaliation or out of spite, does not show that that Mr Falter did not hold the opinion expressed and will not defeat the defence under section 3(5) of the 2013 Act (which is consistent with where the common law had reached in Cheng). d. As for paragraph 22(2), dragging in irrelevant material, even if true, again, does not go to whether the opinion expressed was held. e. As for paragraph 22(3), failing to mention other matters, even if true, does not go to whether the opinion expressed was held. f. An allegedly inconsistent approach, as pleaded in paragraphs 22(5) and (6), even if true, does not go to demonstrating that Mr Falter did not hold the opinion expressed. 35. I agree with Mr Speker’s submissions. The allegation that the defendant may have been motivated by ill-will or spite, as alleged at paragraph 22(1), is irrelevant: see section 3(5) of the 2013 Act. The particulars at 22(2) to 22(6) do not support a plea that Mr Falter, as the defendant’s chief executive, did not hold the opinion that the claimant was antisemitic. I agree that these particulars are mere assertion, and do not support a case that Mr Falter did not believe what he said. Indeed, at paragraph 22(6) the allegations do not relate to anything said by the defendant or Mr Falter directed at the claimant. These allegations relate to other people and are irrelevant. This is because the particulars have to be more consistent with the presence of malice on the part of Mr Falter in relation to what he said about the claimant, rather than with its absence. The claimant cannot make out that case by reference to what it is alleged Mr Falter has said about other people. I agree with the defendant that this plea of malice is insufficient and should be struck out. 36. Further, I have reached this decision by reference to the contents of the statements of case, rather than based on any part of Mr Falter’s evidence. (2) The opinion that the claimant had lied when he claimed in The Guardian newspaper that the International Definition of Anti-Semitism prevents criticism of Israel 37. The IDA (or International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) defines antisemitism as: 1 2