KB-2023-000257 - [2024] EWHC 647 (KB)
Fecha: 21-Mar-2024
Issue (1): Publication
Issue (1): Publication
Submissions for the defendants
Mr Vassall-Adams submits that the letter and words to the same effect were published to a small number of people within MHG or associated companies and to three people at HSMC. Insofar as it is pleaded that the words were published to a large number of others, this is speculative and contrary to the defendants clear evidence. As to the publications to Messrs de Boissieu and Bouquay, there is positive evidence from both the alleged publishers and the alleged publishees that these publications did not take place and nothing to contradict this evidence. As to republication, there is no sound evidential basis on which the court could conclude (whether by way of inference or otherwise) that persons to whom one or more defendants published the letter (or words to the same effect) republished those words at all, let alone to a large number of people. Mr Byrne did tell a large number of people that Mr Sinton had been banned from the Riviera and Emory sites, but he found out about the ban from Mr Delany and the publication was not by or on the authority of the defendants.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Key facts
- The defendant’s case on the summary judgment/strike-out applications
- Summary judgment: the principles
- Issue (1): Publication
- Submissions for the claimant
- Discussion
- Issue (2): Serious harm/defamatory impact
- Submissions for the claimant
- Discussion
- Grounds 3 and 4: Qualified privilege and malice
- Submissions for the claimant
- Discussion
- Ground (5): Malicious falsehood
- Submissions for the claimant
- Discussion
- Issue 6: Abuse of process
- Conclusions