Hamilton v Al Fayed [2001] 1 AC 395

Court: House of Lords

Facts: Al Fayed accused former MP Hamilton of corruption on television, prompting Hamilton to sue for defamation. Al Fayed sought to have the case stayed, arguing that Parliamentary privilege prevented courts from examining Parliamentary proceedings.

Issue: Can an MP waive their Parliamentary privilege in order to pursue a defamation claim?

Held: The House of Lords ruled that under section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, MPs can waive their Parliamentary privilege in defamation cases, allowing courts to scrutinize Parliamentary proceedings. Hamilton's case could proceed because he had waived his privilege.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated that while Parliamentary privilege is a broad shield, section 13 enables MPs to waive this protection when they wish to defend themselves against defamation claims.

💡Leveluplaw: MPs can waive their Parliamentary privilege to pursue justice in defamation cases, but they must balance this against the wider implications for Parliamentary integrity.