The claimant had made complaints against the defendant solicitor to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. In answer the defendant made assertions about the claimant’s mental health, and she now sought to bring action iin defamation on those statements. The defendant said the statements were protected by absolute privilege.
Held: Given the status and nature of the Office it had the characteristics of a tribunal to which the principle in Trapp should be extended. The response had absolute privilege and the claim was bound to fail.
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
 EWHC 1830 (QB), Times 19-Aug-2003
England and Wales
Cited – Addis v Crocker CA 1961
The proceedings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal attract absolute privilege even though they sat in private. . .
Cited – Trapp v Mackie HL 1979
Dr Trapp had been dismissed from his post by the Aberdeenshire Education Committee of which Mr Mackie was chairman. Dr Trapp petitioned the Secretary of State for an inquiry into the reasons for his dismissal. An inquiry was set up, and in the . .
Cited – Roy v Prior HL 1970
The court considered an alleged tort of maliciously procuring an arrest. The plaintiff had been arrested under a bench warrant issued as a result of evidence given by the defendant. He sued the defendant for damages for malicious arrest.
Held: . .
Cited – A v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-2002
The applicant complained that the absence of legal aid to allow a challenge what had been said about her in Parliament by way of defamation, violated her right of access to court.
Held: The right to absolute parliamentary privilege was within . .
Cited – Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2) CA 8-Jun-2000
The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Defamation
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185246