Site icon swarb.co.uk

Cammish v Hughes: CA 12 Dec 2012

Arden LJ summarised the law as regard abuse of process claims in defamation cases, saying that while the court must provide a remedy in a case that requires one, the process of the court should not be used in a case where the need has gone away.

Judges:

Arden, Lloyd Jones LJJ, Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1655, [2013] EMLR 13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromCammish v Hughes QBD 20-Apr-2012
The defendant disputed whether the words complained of were defamatory, and whether the action was an abuse as being ‘not worth the candle’. The parties were in opposition over a proposed development of a biomass plant.
Held: The court found . .

Cited by:

CitedHamaiziam and Another v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 17-Apr-2013
Two serving prisoners asserted defamation by the respondent in a publication suggesting that they were associated with a murder. . .
CitedLachaux v Independent Print Ltd (1) CA 12-Sep-2017
Defamation – presumption of damage after 2013 Act
The claimant said that the defendant had published defamatory statements which were part of a campaign of defamation brought by his former wife. The court now considered the requirement for substantiality in the 2013 Act.
Held: The defendant’s . .
CitedStocker v Stocker SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties had been married and divorced. Mrs S told M S’s new partner on Facebook that he had tried to strangle her and made other allegations. Mrs S now appealed from a finding that she had defamed him. Lord Kerr restated the approach to meaning . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.467059

Exit mobile version