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 conspiracy between the several professionals involved to deprive them of the property. The claimants’ first conspiracy claim was dismissed summarily as irrational and fantastical. The defendants issued proceedings for defamation after the claimant persisted in publishing their allegations on the web. The claimants said they wished to counterclaim for conspiracy, but then decided not to defend the defamation action.
Held: Judgment should be entered against the claimant on the defamation action despite differences as to the facts, and the interim injunction against republication should be continued. Judgment was also entered against them on the conspiracy claim.
Ample grounds had been shown for the making of a civil restraint order, and one was made accordingly.
Judges:
Eady J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 2837 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Downtex v Flatley CA 2-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages for defamation and breach of contract. The claimants had purchased a business from the defendant, which contract included a clause requiring the defendant to say nothing damaging about the business. The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Defamation, Litigation Practice
Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.425807