The pursuer was an accomplished curler, who was the skipper of the Scottish Ladies Curling team, who were competing at the World Ladies Curling Championships in Vernon, Canada in March 2008. The defender was the national coach of the team. Following poor results at the Championships, the defender told the pursuer that she was being dropped from the team for future matches. Latterly, at a press conference, the defender had told the media that the pursuer had been given the opportunity to play in ...
|
A publication only to the Claimant’s solicitor was struck out as an abuse of process under the principles set out in Jameel v Dow Jones: no vindication or injunction could properly be sought that would justify the court time necessary to try the claim.
|
Disapplication of limitation period - defamation claims likely to raise different considerations to personal injury claims so as to warrant “different manifestations of the application of the same principles”
The leading decisions as to disapplication of limitation period in defamation and personal injury (Steedman v BBC [2002] EMLR 318 and Cain v Francis [2009] QB 754 respectively) were not in conflict but rather reflected the fact that the two types of claims are likely to raise different issues. In particular, the impact of a defamation is likely to be relatively transient and a claimant is expected to assert and pursue his need for vindication speedily. An appeal against a refusal to disapply the ...
|
Libel claim dismissed due to qualified privilege defence and lack of proportionality as no real damage to reputation
Words published by a shareholder to other shareholders about the conduct of the managing director were protected by qualified privilege. That was potentially defeasible by malice, but the pleaded case did not meet the strict requirements for pleading and proving malice, amounting principally to allegations of negligence or failure to inquire, and the Defendant was granted summary judgment. Further, trial of the claim would be disproportionate: there was no evidence that the Claimant had suffered ...
|
Summary disposal under ss.8-10 Defamation Act 1996 granted in libel claim
Five individual Claimants were awarded damages of £10,000 and one corporate Claimant £5,000 and a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from publishing the words complained of, along with an order that the Defendants publish an agreed correction and apology (or failing that a summary of the judgment), under the rarely used summary disposal provisions of the Defamation Act 1996, after the Defendants indicated they were no longer defending the claim. The Claimants were also granted summa ...
|
A libel claim relating to local newspaper reports of a swingers club losing its alcohol licence were struck out as failing to set out reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and being worth no more than a nominal amount, if anything at all. The claim had no real prospect of success given that the articles complained of were reports of a local government press release and what the Claimant admitted to be true.
|
An application to have a claim for libel struck out as an abuse of process after the Claimant received damages and public vindication for the publication of a similar libel in another newspaper was dismissed. The settlement of the other action did not remove the Claimant’s entitlement to compensation in respect of the Defendant’s publications.
|
The rule in Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534 that governmental bodies could not sue for libel did not prevent individuals within such organisations who were referred to and defamed by published words from suing for defamation. Nor had the claim been brought for an impermissible collateral purpose.
|
On the basis of the Claimant’s admissions and witness statements it could not be said that a reasonable jury could not fail to find the Claimant’s pleaded defamatory meaning to be true, or that he had behaved in such a way as to make his claim an abuse of process. The Defendant’s application for strike out and/or summary judgment was therefore dismissed.
|
An injunction was granted to restrain the Defendant from continuing to publish words as he had threatened to do so, had not indicated that he had any defence and the Claimant was likely to establish at trial that the publication should not be allowed.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |