The claimant alleged defamation in an article on the defendant’s web-site discussing a failure of his earlier defamation action. He now sought directions for a jury trial.
Judges:
Nicola Davies DBE J
Citations:
[2013] EWHC 2202 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .
Cited – Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, an MP, complained in defamation of the defendant’s description of his rejected expenses claim regarding an assistant’s charitable donation. The paper pleaded a Reynolds defence. The claimant said that when published the defendant knew . .
Cited – Fiddes v Channel Four Television Corporation and Others CA 29-Jun-2010
The claimants in a defamation case made an interlocutory appeal against an order for trial by judge alone. The parties had agreed for trial by jury, but the defendants made a late application for trial by judge alone.
Held: The claimant’s . .
See Also – McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others QBD 30-Mar-2012
The claimant sued in defamation over postings in a review of a book on the Amazon web-site and otherwise. The court now heard interim applications.
Held: Various elements of the claim were struck out as being without value or prospect of . .
See Also – McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others CA 5-Feb-2013
The claimant appealed against a finding that the defendant Amazon was bound to succeed in its defence under the 2002 Regulations against the claim in defamation, and that the claim should be dismissed as an abuse of process under Jameel. He had . .
Cited – Richards v Naum CA 1967
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against an order for the trial of a preliminary issue, since in its view the issue of privilege the subject of the order might require for its determination an investigation of fact in greater detail than the . .
Cited – Tinkler and Another v Elliott CA 10-Oct-2012
The claimant was a litigant in person who said that he had misunderstood the relevant provision of the CPR.
Maurice Kay LJ said: ‘I accept that there may be facts and circumstances in relation to a litigant in person which may go to an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.513776
