THE HON. MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES Approved judgment Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2020] EWHC 2951 (QB) (2) The defendant maliciously referred to the claimant’s historic and spent convictions. The claimant refers to paragraph 26 below. (3) In spite of its close interest in the claimant and his history of political activism the defendant deliberately omitted any reference to his lifetime’s work opposing racism including anti-semitism. The claimant repeats paragraph 12.2 to 12.5 above and refers to paragraph 28 below. (4) The defendant deliberately distorted and misapplied the working definition [the IDA definition] against the claimant. The claimant repeats paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 above. (5) The defendant is inconsistent, hypocritical and opportunistic in its purported policing of anti-semitism, deliberately ignoring acts of antisemitism committed by its political allies, particularly when perpetrated against its political opponents, including the claimant. It ignored the claimant’s following complaints of genuine anti-semitism … (6) The defendant is dishonest or reckless as to the truth in alleging antisemitism against its targets: … [The claimant then alleges that (a) in 2009 Mr Falter made a false accusation against Mr Rowan Luxton, a senior civil servant and Head of the Foreign Office’s South Asia desk; (b) in 2017 the defendant deliberately misrepresented tweets of the newly-elected Palestinian Vice President of the University of Exeter’s Students’ Guild, Ms Malaka Shwaikh; (c) Mr Falter falsely alleged antisemitism against Dr Gould in an attempt to force the University of Bristol to dismiss her; (d) in 2017 the defendant made false accusations against Jackie Walker]. 33. The claimant maintains that this allegation of malice is properly pleaded and should not be struck out. Mr Mitchell submitted that the claimant has identified Mr Falter as a person responsible for the words complained of and who had the state of mind required to constitute malice at law; the pleading in malice is clear and precise; the pleading of dishonesty accords with Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 3) [2003] 2 AC 1, HL at [191], per Lord Hobhouse; and the plea is consistent with malice rather than its absence (see Yeo at [35]). 34. The defendant disagrees and maintains that the pleading of malice in paragraph 22 of the amended reply is defective on its face and can be struck out under CPR Part 3.4(2). Mr Speker submits that: a. Each particular must be more probative of the existence of malice on the part of Mr Falter than its non-existence. There is nothing pleaded which is directed at why it is said that Mr Falter does not hold the belief that the claimant was an antisemite. Since that is so, there is no proper plea of malice. Whatever motive is levelled against Mr Falter, the case law is clear 1 1