Arlene Foster: Dr Christian Jessen in 'last chance' over libel

TV presenter Dr Christian Jessen is in the "last chance saloon" over his bid to defend a libel action over an unfounded rumour about First Minister Arlene Foster, a judge has warned.

Dr Jessen is being sued by Mrs Foster after he tweeted an allegation that she was having an extra-marital affair.

He made the claim to his 300,000-plus Twitter followers on 23 December 2019.

On Tuesday the judge was considering Dr Jessen's claim that he did not receive legal papers from Mrs Foster's lawyers.

When Dr Jessen was under cross-examination last week, he said he did not receive the documents, which were were sent to his London address, and that he was not aware the case had reached the hearing stage.

He told Belfast High Court that he had decided to return to live with his parents in March 2020.

He claimed not to have followed news over the past year and said he "watched Netflix but not current affairs".

He had cited medical reasons, which forced him to take time off work, for the decision to "shut out" news coverage.

Dr Jessen is best known for presenting Channel Four programme Embarrassing Bodies.

During a previous hearing, Mrs Foster told the court she was left humiliated by the unfounded rumour which "trashed" her 25-year marriage.

The tweet remained online until Dr Jessen deleted it on 7 January 2020.

At a case review hearing on Tuesday, the judge said he would make a preliminary ruling on whether Dr Jessen was telling the truth about receiving the documents.

The judge said: "This is an important aspect of the case - this is the last chance saloon for Dr Jessen."

He said: "If I'm satisfied that I consider Dr Jessen is being untruthful in relation to receipt of legal documentation I need consider no further matter in relation to the application for leave to enter a late appearance (by his lawyers)."

"If I consider that he did not receive the documentation... further consideration needs to be given to whether a conditional appearance should be permitted at that stage."

The case was adjourned until 14 May, with the judge saying he had to "ensure the most cost-efficient method of disposing of these issues".