The claimant doctor sued in defamation for letters written by the defendants to the Fitness to Practice Directorate. She now sought to appeal against a finding that she could not rely upon one letter which had come to her attention through disclosure in other proceedings and also that material was privileged.
Held: The defendant was entitled to summary judgment as regards the letter to the BMA initiating the complaint. There was no way that that claim could succeed. ‘The public policy objective is to enable people to speak freely, without inhibition and without fear of being sued, whether making a complaint of criminal conduct to the police or drawing material to the attention of a professional body such as the GMC or the Law Society for the purpose of investigation. It is important that the person in question must be able to know at the time he makes the relevant communication whether or not the immunity will attach; that is to say, the policy would be undermined if, in order to obtain the benefit of the immunity, he was obliged to undergo the stress and expense of resisting a plea of malice.’
As to the letter disclosed in other proceedings, that could not be used for any other purpose without consent. That consent had been refused under the discretion of the judge, and that discretion should not be disturbed without good reason. In fact it had been exercised correctly: ‘it is necessary always to bear in mind that the ultimate purpose of any libel litigation is for the claimant to achieve vindication in respect of his or her character. Since she is not complaining of any of the other passages in the reference, it is not easy to see how a libel action in respect of this letter could ever achieve anything by way of vindication. Accordingly, it seems to me, as in effect it also did to the Master, that any rights on the part of Dr White under Article 6 or Article 8 of the Convention are outweighed by the rights of the Defendants under Article 10 and, specifically, their right not to be vexed with unmeritorious and futile litigation over a confidential document disclosed under compulsion of law.’
Eady J
[2011] EWHC 825 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 31.22
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lincoln v Daniels CA 1961
The defendant claimed absolute immunity in respect of communications sent by him to the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the plaintiff, a Queen’s Counsel.
Held: Initial communications sent to the secretary of the Bar Council . .
Cited – Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald, Cameron-MacDonald CA 12-May-2000
The court gave detailed guidance on the application of the new procedures on civil appeals in private law cases introduced on May 2. Appeals from a County Court District Judge’s final decision in a multi-track case could now go straight to the Court . .
Cited – Lilley v Roney 1892
A complaint to the Law Society or its equivalent had been held to be made on occasion of absolute privilege. . .
Cited – Hung v Gardiner 6-May-2003
Canlii (Court of Appeal for British Columbia) The court was asked whether a person who provides information to a professional disciplinary body about the conduct of one of its members is liable in an action . .
Cited – Vaidya v General Medical Council QBD 16-Nov-2010
Adjourned application to set aside a general civil restraint order. One issue was as to a claim brought upon a letter to the GMC. The judge said: ‘It appears to me to be clear beyond argument that this letter is protected by absolute privilege since . .
Cited – Vaidya v General Medical Council QBD 2010
Sir Charles Gray said: ‘It appears to me to be clear beyond argument that this letter is protected by absolute privilege since it was written to an official of an investigatory body (the GMC) in order to complain about the conduct of Dr Vaidya.’ . .
Cited – Westcott v Westcott CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
Cited – Ahari v Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust EAT 1-Apr-2008
EAT Practice and Procedure: Strikingout/dismissal
Jurisdictional Points: Claim in time and effective date of termination
Race discrimination: Direct
Absolute witness immunity – quasi-judicial . .
Cited – Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
Cited – Trapp v Mackie HL 1979
Dr Trapp had been dismissed from his post by the Aberdeenshire Education Committee of which Mr Mackie was chairman. Dr Trapp petitioned the Secretary of State for an inquiry into the reasons for his dismissal. An inquiry was set up, and in the . .
Cited – Dawkins v Lord Rokeby 1873
dawkins_rokeby1873
Police officers (among others) are immune from any action that may be brought against them on the ground that things said or done by them in the ordinary course of the proceedings were said or done falsely and maliciously and without reasonable and . .
Cited – D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL 2-Feb-1977
Immunity from disclosure of their identity should be given to those who gave information about neglect or ill treatment of children to a local authority or the NSPCC similar to that which the law allowed to police informers.
Lord Simon of . .
Cited – Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd v Parkinson CA 1892
The court described the characteristics of a tribunal to which absolute privilege attaches. Having spoken of ‘an authorised inquiry which, though not before a court of justice, is before a tribunal which has similar attributes’ and similar . .
Cited – G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) HL 25-Apr-1985
The House asked when a decision, on the facts, of a first instance court is so wrong as to allow it to be overturned on appeal.
Held: The epithet ‘wrong’ is to be applied to the substance of the decision made by the lower court. ‘Certainly it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.431659