The defendants sought to strike out the defamation claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process. It was brought by the founder of Easyjet against senior officers of a company in a new venture. The claimant had alleged misuse of confidential information provided to them at a meeting. Allegations were made first by the defendants of defamation in correspondence between solicitors. They defendants said that the claimant had himself drawn attention of others to the correspondence said to be defamatory and was the architect of his own misfortune, and that the action was disproportionate.
Held: A strike out in such a case must be an exceptional measure. There was a possibility of a substantial award of damages, and the circumstances of publication and offers of amends were not undisputed. A short stay should be imposed as an alternative to allow negotiations to come to fruition.
Sharp J said: ‘Publication of a libel or indeed a slander, to one person may be trivial in one context, but more serious than publication to many more in another. Much depends on the nature of the allegation, and the identity of the person about whom and the person or persons to whom it is made. To that extent, the decision in each case is ‘fact sensitive’ . . ‘.
It is one thing to be slandered (even seriously) in front of an unknown passer-by (e.g. in front of C, A says to B, ‘you stole that item from the shop’), it is quite another for a person to be slandered to his/her employer. In the first example, if the passer-by does not know the claimant, even though, in the circumstances, s/he has been sufficiently identified, then the harm caused to reputation will be limited because of the anonymity. Importantly, it would usually be impossible for there to be any grapevine effect, because the publishee cannot pass on the information in a way that has any damaging effect on the claimant.
Judges:
Sharp J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 178 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited – Mardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The . .
Cited by:
Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.295123
