Eady J explained the background and legislative purpose of the 1996 Act provisions for offers of amends. Judges: Eady J Citations:  EWHC 2345 (QB),  1 WLR 2201 Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 2 Cited by: Cited – Murray v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 15-Apr-2014 Application to read unilateral statement in satisfaction of defamation claim. … Continue reading Abu v MGN Ltd (Practice Note): QBD 2002
High Court of Australia – Torts – Joint tortfeasors – Release – Effect of release of one joint tortfeasor on other joint tortfeasors – Effect on common law of s 11 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT) – Whether cause of action against joint tortfeasors one and indivisible. Defamation – Defences – … Continue reading Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd: 10 Dec 1996
The defendant had admitted copying B’s drawings and designs for the creation of a nebulizer. To assist its election on damages, B sought preparation of details of the sales including costs and sale prices. When B also sought statutory damages, M said that having omitted it from the statement of claim, it was too late … Continue reading Brugger v Medic-Aid Ltd: PatC 1996
The judge may disclose to the jury the purpose of a non-party’s involvement as a backer of a party if it is relevant to the case.Simon Brown LJ said as to an allegation that the claim was an abuse of process: ‘The cases appear to suggest two distinct categories of such misuse of process:(i) The … Continue reading Broxton v McClelland and Another: CA 27 Nov 1996
Claim may be added outside limitation period where based on same facts. Citations: Times 11-Apr-1996 Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 35 Citing: Appealed to – Lloyds Bank Plc v Rogers and Another CA 20-Dec-1996 An out of time claim for defamation was allowed after late disclosures by the defendant bank in the case. . . Cited … Continue reading Lloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another: QBD 11 Apr 1996
A libel case against a French paper was rightly brought in UK despite the small (250 copies nationally and 5 in the plaintiff’s local area (Yorkshire)) circulation here. The Brussels Convention allows a claim for defamation in UK though the main public was abroad. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘Where English law presumes the publication … Continue reading Shevill and Others v Presse Alliance SA: HL 26 Jul 1996
The plaintiffs, British Coal Corporation, claim damages for libel against the National Union of Mineworkers (Yorkshire area) and also against one of the union’s senior officials. The alleged libel was published in the ‘Yorkshire Miner’, a monthly magazine distributed by the NUM, and the issue in question was that for April, 1992. The defendants said … Continue reading British Coal Corporation v National Union of Mineworkers and Another: QBD 28 Jun 1996
Adjourned application for leave to appeal against order for security for costs of appeal. . .
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 9; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic . .
questions as to the meaning of the word ‘defamatory’ and as to the nature of an action for defamation. . .
An out of time claim for defamation was allowed after late disclosures by the defendant bank in the case. . .
Articles in consecutive issues of The Sunday Mirror accused the plaintiff of pimping for the KGB, organising sex with prostitutes for visiting British businessmen and then blackmailing them. The defendants pleaded justification. The plaintiff . .
An ex parte order allowing an action by a vexatious litigant is not appealable by the prospective defendant to the action permitted. Such a defendant to proceedings by a vexatious litigant against whom a civil proceedings order had been made was . .
The defendant agreed to indemnify the insured ‘in respect of all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay as compensation arising out of’ various matters including wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The . .
The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed . .
No passing off was to be found to have been shown without the public believing that the plaintiff was responsible for the defendant’s services or goods. It was not enough to show only that the defendant was somehow ‘behind’ the defendant. Millet LJ . .
The plaintiff actor said that an article by the defendant labelling him ugly was defamatory. The defendant denied that the words were defamatory.
Held: It is for the jury to decide in what context the words complained of were used and whether . .
Consent to amendment of defence wrongfully refused without finding of mala fides. . .
A quia timet action in a defamation case must specify the precise words which are expected to be used. . .
In a defamation action, it is open to the defendant to justify the imputation by establishing that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff from an objective point of view.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘But the jury are concerned with . .
The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
Held: A defamation was not to be . .
The solicitor, acting in a land purchase transaction for his lay client and the plaintiff, had unwittingly misled the claimant by telling the claimant that the purchasers were providing the balance of the purchase price themselves without recourse . .
Husband and wife were involved in a custody dispute. The father made serious but false allegations to the press. She now claimed in defamation, but he relied upon limitation. She said the facts had only become known to her much later.
Held: . .
References: (1996) 141 ALR 1, (1996) 186 CLR 574, (1996) 71 ALJR 131,  Aust Torts Reports 81-412, (1996) 20 Leg Rep 24 Links: Austlii Coram: Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, Gummow JJ High Court of Australia – Torts – Joint tortfeasors – Release – Effect of release of one joint tortfeasor on other joint tortfeasors – … Continue reading Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd; 10 Dec 1996
References:  Aust Torts Reports 81-416, (1996) 41 NSWLR 176,  NSWSC 651 Links: Austlii Coram: Mahoney ACJ, Handley JA, Giles AJA (Supreme Court of New South Wales) Defamation – Damages – Aggravated and general damages – Economic loss with respect to professional standing – Principles relevant to assessment of damages for defamation – Relationship … Continue reading Crampton v Nugawela; 23 Dec 1996
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The claimant seeks the court’s determination of the amount(s) to be paid to him by way of compensation pursuant to s.3(5) of the Defamation Act 1996, following his acceptance of a qualified offer of amends. . .
Proceedings to determine quantum of compensation in a defamation action which has been settled under the Offer of Amends procedure (sections 2 and 3 of the Defamation Act 1996). . .
The court should be reluctant to attach qualified privilege to ‘reportage’ in circumstances where Parliament, in enacting section 15 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Defamation Act 1996, had not chosen to do so. . .
There should be nothing in any sense ‘rough and ready’ about the assessment of the claimant’s reputation under the offer of amends procedure in the 1996 Act. If compensation is not agreed it should be determined by the court on the same principles as in defamation proceedings. The court will take account of a range … Continue reading Abu v MGN Ltd: QBD 2003
The claimants sought summary relief in their defamation claim against the defendants. Judges: Eady J Citations:  EWHC 1156 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 8 9 10 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.263172
The defendant requested entry of summary judgment against itself under section 8(3) to limit the maximum damages to andpound;10,000. If it went to trial the defendant might argue qualified privilege. To have jurisdiction it had to appear to the court that ‘there is no defence to the claim that has a realistic prospect of success, … Continue reading Milne v Telegraph Ltd: QBD 2001
The claimants, Coomber, claimed in conspiracy, and the defendants claimed in defamation. Various applications were made. The claimants had promoted a development project, but their bankers went into administration. The bank being unable to promise further funds, required repayment of the sums already advanced, and in due course sold the property. The claimants alleged a … Continue reading Ernst and Young Llp and Others v Coomber and Another: QBD 8 Nov 2010
Applications concerning (1) the meanings which the words complained of are capable of bearing and (2) the extent to which, if at all, the claims advanced by the claimant have any real prospect of success having regard to that issue, and the reporting privileges provided for in s 15 of and the Schedule to the … Continue reading Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc and Others: QBD 27 Jun 2017
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar action by her had already been struck out applying Jameel. The defendant … Continue reading Kaschke v Gray and Another: QBD 23 Jul 2010
The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs orders. Held: It was arguable that many of the postings made to the forum should … Continue reading Smith v ADVFN Plc and others: QBD 25 Jul 2008
The defendant MEP had had adjourned the claim against her for defamation, claiming that her actions has been as an MEP and therefore exempt from proceedings. The chair of the European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee had received and rejected her request for protection. She now said that she had not been properly advised when settling. … Continue reading Barron and Others v Collins MEP: QBD 22 Dec 2016
The defendant newspaper had made a full apology and offer of amends under the section, and relied upon it as a defence. The claimant sought to impugn that apology, saying that the article had been malicious. He sought disclosure to support the claim. Held: The request was a fishing expedition. To undermine the defence, the … Continue reading Milne v Express Newspapers Ltd: QBD 29 Nov 2002
The claimant solicitor said he had been defamed on the first defendant’s website (‘Solicitors from Hell’) by the second defendant. The first defendant now applied to set aside judgment entered by default. The claimant additionally sought summary disposal under section 8 of the 1996 Act. The second defendant had settled admitting his claims were unjustified. … Continue reading Robins v Kordowski and Another: QBD 22 Jul 2011
The defendant sought to strike out the claimant’s action in defamation. It had reported that the police had withdrawn an employment offer to claimant after doubting his immigration status. Held: The claims should be struck out. The articles were now available on the defendant’s website only by searching for it. A search would reveal three … Continue reading Budu v The British Broadcasting Corporation: QBD 23 Mar 2010
The defendant appealed against the refusal of the Master to strike out the claim in defamation in respect of a post by a third party on his unmoderated blog. The claimant said that the article accused her of an historic association with a terrorist group. As soon as the complaint was made known to him, … Continue reading Kaschke v Gray and Another: QBD 29 Mar 2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had inevitably carried the traffic from the bulletin boards to their own customers. Held: The claims were struck … Continue reading Bunt v Tilley and others: QBD 10 Mar 2006
The newspaper had been sued in defamation, and it had been agreed that a statement would be made. The parties however differed as to the form of statement to be read out in court. Held: The appeal failed: ‘The allegation complained of is that the claimant had given a knowingly false account of her time … Continue reading Associated Newspapers Ltd v Murray: CA 15 May 2015
The company sought relief after the defendant a former senior employee had left but then written to customers alleging fraud by the claimant. Held: ‘ this is as clear a case as there could possibly be that the Defendant’s denial that she published the two letters was, in the case of each, untrue and that … Continue reading Jon Richard Ltd v Gornall: QBD 16 May 2013
An Internet Service Provider who was re-distributing Usenet postings it had received, to its users in general, remained a publisher at common law, even though he was not such within the definitions of the Act, and it was therefore liable in defamation after failing to remove a posting which it then continued to distribute after … Continue reading Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited: QBD 26 Mar 1999
The claimant complained of an article on the defendant’s web-site. The defendant offered an unqualified offer of amends. The court was asked to settle an amount of compensation. Though the article was removed within a few hours and upon receipt of the complaint, the claimant said that it had generated repeats of the libel. Held: … Continue reading Bowman v MGN Ltd: QBD 26 Apr 2010
The parties had compromised a defamation claim with an offer of amends, but the claimant wished to read out a statement in accordance with the rules, being unhappy with the apology offered. The defendant objected, saying that she had no entitlement to make such an application, this being a defendant’s right. Held: The court rejected … Continue reading Winslet v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 3 Nov 2009
The claimant police officer sought damages from the defendants who had published a book alleging that he had been corrupt. The defendants claimed privilege under Reynolds and the 1996 Act. Held: The defence of qualified privilege failed. Gray J  EWHC 1756 (QB),  1 All ER 622 Bailii Defamation Act 1996 England and Wales … Continue reading Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others: QBD 13 Jul 2006
Applications were launched with in defamation proceedings to seek to recover damages for parties who had not previously been part of the proceedings. Held: The amendments were refused. The new claimants were now out of time, and it was clear that they had taken steps before the limitation period had expired, but chose to pursue … Continue reading Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 19 Dec 2007
The court considered the availability of qualified privilege for reporting of statements made in parliament and the actionable meaning of the article, which comprised in part those statements and in part other factual material representing the newspaper’s own investigative findings. Challenge to the so-called ‘repetition rule’ which generally applies to reported speech in defamation proceedings. … Continue reading Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd: CA 30 Apr 2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant company offering internet search facilities. The words complained of had been published in a blog, and in comments published on the blog. Held: Jurisdiction should be declined. Any claim would fail. An ISP which performs no more than a passive role in facilitating postings on the … Continue reading Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd: QBD 2 Mar 2012
The claimant appealed against refusal of the Master to extend the 12 month limitation period in his proposed defamation claim. The allegations related to a dispute at an Aslef barbecue, and later of forgery. The claimant was a former General Secretary of the union, and the defendant the current General Secretary. Earlier allegations had been … Continue reading Brady v Norman: QBD 26 May 2010
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in a referral letter sent to a third party. She had been dismissed from a non-teaching post after having been found using school computers to access pornography. The letter had reported the findings to the third party a ‘relevant employer’ under the Regulations. The letter had suggested misbehaviour … Continue reading Henderson v London Borough of Hackney and Another: QBD 5 Jul 2010
The claimant sought to have disapplied the limitation period in his defamation claim. The claimant said that in the case of Cain, the Steedman case had not been cited, and that the decisions were incompatible, and that Cain was to be prefered. Held: The appeal failed. The two cases could be reconciled. Considerations in defamation … Continue reading Brady v Norman: CA 9 Feb 2011
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a search engine might have for a defamation pointed to by its results pages. Held: As to … Continue reading Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others: QBD 16 Jul 2009
Evidence of Reputation Admissible but Limited The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for defamation. The defendant wished to amend its defence to include allegations that the plaintiff had courted litigation by his action. Held: A judge assessing damages should be able see the reputation claimed to be damaged, and the defendant had to … Continue reading Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2): QBD 23 Apr 1999
The claimant alleged defamation. The defendant offered to make amends but wished to maintain his denial that the statement itself was defamatory. Held: An offer of amends required acceptance that the statement had been defamatory. A statement could not be defamatory only in the abstract. Tugendhat J  EWHC 2552 (QB), Times 10-Dec-2008 Bailii Defamation … Continue reading Club La Costa (UK) Plc v Gebhard and others: QBD 24 Oct 2008
The claimant sought damages for an article in the defendant’s newspaper, a review of her book which said she had falsely claimed to have interviewed artists including the review author and that the claimant allowed interviewees control over what was said. The claimant sought to have struck out the defence of fair comment. Held: A … Continue reading Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd: QBD 12 Nov 2009
The respondent hosted a blogs platform. One of its user’s blogs was said by the appellant to have been defamatory. On discovery the material had been removed quickly. The claimant now appealed against his claim being struck out. He argued as to: (1) whether there is an arguable case that Google Inc was a publisher … Continue reading Tamiz v Google Inc: CA 14 Feb 2013
Application to read unilateral statement in satisfaction of defamation claim. Held: It follows from the terms of section 3 of the 1996 Act that the court should not regard as normal an oral hearing of submissions by a defendant that a claimant should be refused permission to make a unilateral statement. That would involve further … Continue reading Murray v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 15 Apr 2014
There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs . .
The test to be applied to the question of summary disposal under s.8 of the 1996 Act is the same as that under CPR Part 24. . .
The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation.
Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by . .
The claimant appealed against summary dismissal of his claim in defamation. . .
Assessment of damages after offer of amends.
Held: the Court’s award of damages serves as ‘an outward and visible sign of vindication’ . .
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 . .
Three MPs had sued in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused them of knowing of the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham without doing anything about it. Liability now being established, the court set out to assess the damages . .
The claimant alleged that the defendant, the chief executive of the Law Society had slandered him in a conversation with another senior lawyer. The claimant now sought summary judgment against the claimant, saying that the defence had no realistic . .
The defendant sought a strike out of the claim in defamation, saying that postings made on its web-sites were fair and accurate reports of court proceedings published contemporaneously. The claimant solicitor had been the subject of disciplinary . .
The claimant MP sued the defendant in defamation after he had alleged that the MP had corruptly solicited and received payments and benefits in kind as a reward for parliamentary services rendered.
Held: Parliament has protected by privilege . .
Application to fix compensation for defamation. . .
Application to fix compensation under 1996 Act. . .
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
The court looked at the calculation of damages after an offer of amends under the Act by the defendant.
Held: Such calculations have to be linked to the very different circumstances of each case. Comparisons with awards after jury trial were . .
The claimant was upset by an article published by the defendant making false allegations that he had behaved in a sexually profligate manner many years earlier. When it was substantially repeated he sued.
Held: The words were defamatory. An . .
A posting on a website criticised the competence and integrity of a solicitor. The posting was thought to have been live for about a month. On an application under ss 8 and 9 of the 1996 Act in a claim which was undefended Lloyd-Jones J awarded . .
Interpretation of agreement for amends offer. . .
Dispute as to quantification of damages for libel. An offer of amends had been made, but the parties could not agree the sum payable. . .
Whether report of decision of a GMC disciplinary panel had statutory qualified privilege. . .
The claimant appealed the award of damages in his claim for defamation. The defendants had variously issued apologies. The claimant had not complained initially as to one publication.
Held: In defamation proceedings the damage to feelings is . .
Trial of preliminary issues of malice and privilege . .
The claimant, having not accepted an offer to make amends, wanted to proceed to a jury trial. To be permitted to do so, he had to seek to establish that the defendants ‘knew or had reason to believe that the statement complained of . . was both . .
The claimants had issued defamation proceedings. The defendant said they were out of time, having begun the action more than one year after the alleged publication, but accepted that they had not been prejudiced in their defence. The court refused . .
The court was asked whether the daughter of Cecil Parkinson and Sarah Keays should be permitted to take part in a television programme about the specialist help she was receiving for her special educational needs. Held: The court refused to vary an injunction against publication of any details with regard to a particular child. This … Continue reading In re Z (A Minor) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication): CA 31 Jul 1995
The defendants employed by the first defendant carried out a post mortem on the plaintiff’s infant son. They found concentrations of morphine and told the police. The plaintiff was charged with the murder of her son. After further investigation no evidence was offered and she was acquitted. She claimed damages for negligence against the defendants … Continue reading Evans v London Hospital Medical College and Others: 1981
The court set out the applicable legal principles in trade mark infringement. The court considered the elements necessary to establish a defence under s10(6): The primary objective of section 10(6) of the 1996 Act is to permit comparative advertising . . As long as the use of a competitor’s mark is honest, there is nothing … Continue reading Cable and Wireless plc v British Telecommunications plc: ChD 1998
The Plaintiff, a credit bookmaker successfully sued the Bank in libel. The libel proved was writing the words ‘not sufficient’ on a cheque issued by the Plaintiff when they dishonoured it. He would have had sufficient funds ad the bank followed his instructions to stop an earlier cheque. As applied to cheques, s 49(12) of … Continue reading Davidson v Barclays Bank Ltd: 1940
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception to state immunity. Held: The Kingdom’s appeal succeeded. The protection of state immunity was essentially a … Continue reading Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others: HL 14 Jun 2006
In an action for libel, the Judge is not bound to state to the jury, as matter of law, whether the publication complained of be a libel or not ; but the proper course is for him to define what is a libel in point of law, and to leave it to the jury to … Continue reading Parmiter v Coupland And Another: 1840
The court considered an application by a third party to proceedings to prevent a statement being read out in open court in defamation proceedings. Justification had originally been pleaded by both defendants but, as part of a settlement with the second defendant the Spectator accepted that the libel could not be justified and withdrew that … Continue reading Barnet v Crozier: CA 1987
The defendants published an article describing the plaintiff estate agent as ‘a notorious dodgy operator of London slum properties’. The article quoted statements by Lord Goddard CJ 8 years before describing the plaintiff’s estate agency as ‘a fraudulent business from beginning to end’. The defendants put forward a plea of justification stating that in the … Continue reading Waters v Sunday Pictorial Newspapers Ltd: CA 1961
Exemplary and aggravated damages were claimed in an action for nuisance arising out of the contamination of water by the defendant utility. Held: Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘A defendant accused of crime may ordinarily be ordered (if convicted) to pay a financial penalty. In such a case he will enjoy the constitutional safeguards afforded … Continue reading AB v South West Water Services Ltd: CA 1993
The claimant alleged that disparaging adverts by the defendant infringed its trade marks and amounted to the tort of malicious falsehood. Held: There was no dispute that the mark had been used. The Act could not be used to prevent any use of another’s trade mark in comparitive advertising. In this case the advertisement, though … Continue reading British Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited: ChD 25 Oct 2000
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the application, and now appealed its refusal. Held: The court restated the practice on the making of … Continue reading Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005
The police were not under any duty to protect someone who had been arrested from injuring himself in an attempt to escape. The claimant had a history of seeking to avoid capture by jumping from his flat window. On this occasion he injured himself in the fall. The doctrine of ex turpi no oritur actio … Continue reading Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police: CA 31 Jul 2001
The defendants had published an article stating simply and solely that a writ had been issued against the four plaintiffs claiming damages for alleged conspiracy to defraud. They pleaded justification, based on the issue of the writ itself. The plaintiffs attacked this plea on the grounds that it offended against the repetition rule. Held: The … Continue reading Cadam v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd: CA 1959
The publication complained of related to the plaintiff Cabinet Minister (referred to in the article as Phil), in which it was stated that a man had seen one Judd, to whom an import licence had been issued, with the object of getting information from him about import procedure, and that Judd had told him to … Continue reading Truth (NZ) Ltd v Holloway: PC 1960
Two police officers gave evidence in a criminal prosecution of others, that the plaintiff, a barrister, had behaved improperly by obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty and subsequently gave similar evidence at an inquiry before the Benchers of Lincoln’s Inn into the conduct of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought an action … Continue reading Marrinan v Vibart: CA 2 Jan 1962