The defendant sought to strike out a claim in defamation. Acting on behalf of his client the solicitor defendant was said to have called a journalist and defamed the claimant. The words were denied.
Held: Assuming (which was denied) that the allegations made by the claimant were true as to what had happened, the claimant still had no answer to a defence of qualified privilege by the second defendant. The particulars pleaded by the appellant were insufficient to satisfy the requirements of establishing malice. The claim was struck out. The defendant would also have an insurmountable defence of limitation.
Judges:
Eady J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 2027 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Baker v Carrick 1894
Letters written by a solicitor in the performance of his or her duties to a client of the firm to a person with an appropriate interest in receiving it attract qualified privilege. Publication by a solicitor is protected by qualified privilege if . .
Cited – Adam v Ward HL 1917
The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the . .
Cited – Regan v Taylor CA 9-Mar-2000
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant, his then opponent’s solicitor. He now appealed summary judgment against him.
Held: A solicitor properly appointed by his client to represent his client in legal proceedings and responding to . .
Cited – C v Mirror Group Newspapers and Others CA 21-Jun-1996
Husband and wife were involved in a custody dispute. The father made serious but false allegations to the press. She now claimed in defamation, but he relied upon limitation. She said the facts had only become known to her much later.
Held: . .
Cited – Somerville v Hawkins 1851
It is necessary for a claimant who wishes to prove malice in an alleged defamation to plead and prove facts which are more consistent with its presence than with its absence. Mawle J said: ‘it is certainly not necessary in order to enable a . .
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch CA 1991
The court considered the element of malice in a defamation defence: ‘If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of malice, it cannot as a matter of law provide evidence on which the jury could find malice. The judge . .
Cited – Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others CA 1993
The test for malice is the same whether it arises in the context of libel or of injurious falsehood. Glidewell LJ said that ‘Maliciously’ in this context means either knowing that the words were false or being reckless as to whether they were false . .
Cited – Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling and Lom CA 28-Jul-1995
The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .
Cited – Alexander v Arts Council of Wales CA 9-Apr-2001
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a . .
Cited – Lonrho Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5) CA 27-Jul-1993
Defamatory statements causing pecuniary loss may give rise to an action in tort only. The boundaries set by the tort of defamation are not to be side-stepped by allowing a claim in contract that would not succeed in defamation. A claimant cannot, by . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Khader v Aziz and Others CA 23-Jun-2010
The claimant brought defamation proceedings after she had found and returned a valuable necklace belonging to the first respondent. The claim had been dismissed as an abuse of process.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed: ‘there is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Limitation
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.368660