The defendant requested entry of summary judgment against itself under section 8(3) to limit the maximum damages to andpound;10,000. If it went to trial the defendant might argue qualified privilege. To have jurisdiction it had to appear to the court that ‘there is no defence to the claim that has a realistic prospect of success, and that there is no other reason why the claim should be tried’. Accordingly, in its application under s.8(3), the defendant said it was waiving the defence of qualified privilege (although it was also saying that that defence would, if pursued, have a realistic prospect of success). The claimant said this was an abuse of the court’s procedure to be prepared to waive a defence for one purpose, but, if it is unsuccessful, then to go back and rely on it, if there is a full trial.
Held: Popplewell J accepted that: ‘if summary trial is the appropriate way of dealing with this expeditiously and inexpensively, there is no reason why the defendant should not be allowed to say: ‘We will accept that there is no defence to this action for the purpose of this summary disposal application’.’
Judges:
Popplewell J
Citations:
[2001] EMLR 760
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers QBD 19-Feb-2008
Complaint was made that an article was defamatory of the owner of Manchester United. The defendant now argued that the game was not worth the candle. The costs vastly exceeded any possible recovery, and it had openly offered vindication, and that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Litigation Practice
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.278229
