The University defendant sought to strike out the claim in defamation against it. The claimant had applied for an extension of time to complete his doctorate, but the defendant by mistake supplied to the committee a critical report, but about a different student of the same name. The university argued that the report which described the student as suffering health problems could not be treated as defamatory.
Held: The claim was struck out. ‘The legitimate purpose which defamation proceedings are intended to serve is that of obtaining vindication or compensation for injury to reputation. There is no reason to suppose that any such objective could be achieved by the present proceedings. Accordingly, to adopt the language used by the Court of Appeal in Jameel, ‘the game is not worth the candle’.’
Eady J
[2012] EWHC 290 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Defamation
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.451439
