The appellant police officers and others were defendants in an action for defamation. They appealed a refusal of a trial of the preliminary issue as to whether they had the benefit of qualified privilege. They said that recent case law (GKR Karate and Loutchansky) had established a rule to that effect.
Held: The cases did not establish any such rule of practice. The judge’s discretion as to case management was to remain unfettered. The judge had to balance the possibility of averting a long and expensive trial against the delay of an opportunity to a claimant to defend his character.
Judges:
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Dyson and Mr Justice Wall
Citations:
Times 30-Aug-2002, Gazette 26-Sep-2002
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes QBD 17-Jan-2000
The claimant sought damages alleging defamation. The judge ordered certain elements of the case to be heard first, and others, if necessary later. Although the case had been begun under the old rules, the new civil procedure regime gave the judge . .
Cited – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.174752