KB-2023-000257 - [2024] EWHC 647 (KB)
Fecha: 21-Mar-2024
Submissions for the claimant
Submissions for the claimant
Ms Page responds that the extent of publication will depend on the evidence at trial. Mr Socker’s statement provides no detail on what was said to Jawad Sabir, who was tasked with instructing staff at MHG’s various sites to disable Mr Sinton’s access. The Particulars of Claim allege that the defendants sent communications in the same or similar form as the letter to “a large (but presently unquantifiable) number of other people” and it is accepted that Mr Sinton managed hundreds of workers and sub-contractors and attended frequent meetings at MHL’s offices in Knightsbridge. At trial, the court will have to consider whether any republications by HSMC were intended and authorised. There is a real prospect the court will conclude that they were, because the defamatory publication to HSMC authorised republication to whoever needed to know of Mr Sinton’s suspension and HSMC had not at that stage been relieved of their obligation to continue construction work. There is evidence that the defendants knew very well that their letter would have serious implications for Mr Sinton’s reputation, in the form of a message sent by Mr Socker on WhatsApp: “Wait for the fireworks”. Mr de Boissieu’s statement is silent about what he was told by the defendants. There is a dispute of fact about what Mr Bouquay was told.
- 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