The defendant solicitors had acted for defendants in an action brought by the plaintiff. They swore and filed an affidavit in support of an application to strike out elements of the action. The affidavit spoke as to abusive and threatening calls and actions from the plaintiff, and of instructions to seek injunctive relief. The plaintiff now sued the solicitors alleging in effect defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendants appealed against the refusal of the judge to strike out the claim.
Held: The appeal was successful, and the claim struck out. The statements complained of were sufficiently close to the matters at issue between the parties to attract protection: ‘it might have been open to Mr. Samuels to apply to have paragraphs 7 to 19 of the affidavit struck out on the grounds of their lack of relevance, but I am in no doubt at all that they are well within the absolute privilege of witness immunity.’
Thorpe LJ, Holman J
[1997] EWCA Civ 1755, [1997] CLY 4860
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Seaman v Netherclift 1876
The court considered the protection of a witness in court from defamation actions and otherwise.
Held: Sir Alexander Cockburn CJ said: ‘I am very far from desiring to be considered as laying down as law that what a witness states altogether . .
Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
Cited – Roy v Prior HL 1970
The court considered an alleged tort of maliciously procuring an arrest. The plaintiff had been arrested under a bench warrant issued as a result of evidence given by the defendant. He sued the defendant for damages for malicious arrest.
Held: . .
Cited by:
Cited – Iqbal v Mansoor and Others QBD 26-Aug-2011
The claimant sought the disapplication of the limitation period in order to pursue the defendant solicitors, his former employers, in defamation. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.142151