The claimant and defendant claimed defamation of each other in cross claims as to postings made on internet newsgroups messages. Mr P said that the defendant had not been identified in the defamation alleged against Mr P. The defendant had been identified by his email address. The claimant appealed against the judgment given dismissing his own claim, and for the defendant.
Held: The judge’s finding stood. The claimant should not be prejudiced, since the same argument might run against him to say that only a few people would make the identification, and that the damages were therefore very limited.
‘This case cried out for case management. The rules allow a judge to do what Gray J did. If the judge thinks there is no real prospect of a claim succeeding, he ought, when exercising his case management powers, to dismiss it summarily: see CPR Part 1.4(2)(c) and paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the Practice Direction to CPR Part 26. In the course of his discussion with Mr Pepin the judge made it clear what it was that he was intending to do and yet Mr Pepin, who is an experienced litigant in person, did not ask for an adjournment or indicate that he found himself in any difficulty in dealing with the points which the judge put to him.’
Judges:
Tuckey, Longmore LJJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 1522
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Penney and Others v East Kent Health Authority CA 16-Nov-1999
A cervical smear screener could be liable in negligence if he failed to spot obvious abnormalities in a test result which indicated that further investigation was required. To say this is not to say that such screening tests were expected to achieve . .
Cited by:
Cited – Clifford Harris and Co v Solland International Ltd and others ChD 3-Nov-2004
The claimant solicitors sought their costs from the defendant former clients. They now applied for orders under section 73 of the 1974 Act to have them settled from the proceeds of their litigation now held by another firm of solicitors now acting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217729