Matt Hancock has told the Court of Appeal that a libel claim lodged against him "should never have been brought".
The former Conservative health secretary, who served from 2018 to 2021, is being sued by Andrew Bridgen, the former North West Leicestershire MP, over a social media post on X (then Twitter) in January 2023.
This appeal follows a High Court ruling last April, which allowed Mr Bridgen's claim to proceed to trial, rejecting Mr Hancock's earlier attempt to have it dismissed.
Mr Hancock is now challenging that decision, a move opposed by Mr Bridgen.
Representing Mr Hancock, Aidan Eardley KC told the court on Wednesday: "His position is that the opinion he is being sued for expressing is his honest opinion."
He added Mr Hancock is concerned that the case may be used as a vehicle to “attack” the Covid-19 vaccination scheme, but that there is a public inquiry ongoing and the court should “carefully” consider if the case has a realistic prospect of success.
In written submissions, Mr Eardley told the court in London: “This is a libel claim that should never have been brought.
“It concerns political speech falling well within the generous limits afforded by the defence of honest opinion. Having been brought, the claim should have been dismissed summarily.
“The judge’s failure to do so was based on serious errors of approach, which the Court of Appeal is invited to correct.”
The post in question came after Mr Bridgen shared a link to an article “concerning data about deaths and other adverse reactions linked to Covid vaccines”, stating: “As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.”
Hours later, Mr Hancock shared a video of him asking a question in the House of Commons, captioned: “The disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society.”
Christopher Newman, for Mr Bridgen, said in written submissions: “The tweet is not, on its face, antisemitic given the use of the word ‘since’ and all known definitions of antisemitism.
“At the heart of this appeal lies Mr Hancock’s attempt to avoid that conclusion, which is arguably fatal to his defence in these proceedings, by advancing two contentions which can be shown to be wrong by reference to documents filed in the course of proceedings.”
He added that Mr Hancock was “simply wrong” in his contentions that there is considerable uncertainty as to what antisemitism means because of the existence of a number of definitions.
The case before Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Warby and Lady Justice Whipple is due to conclude on Wednesday.
