King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court
KB-2023-000257 - [2024] EWHC 647 (KB)
Fecha: 21-Mar-2024
Submissions for the claimant
Submissions for the claimant
Ms Page submits that the original statement complained of percolated quickly. It was republished to others who needed to know that Mr Sinton would not be on site (including chairing the daily site meetings). There was also gossip, which was the natural and foreseeable consequence of the original publication. The evidence of Messrs Sinton, Byrne, Pena and Magill is that it is highly unusual for anyone to be banned from one site, let alone multiple sites. As such the barring will constitute a stain on his reputation. Mr Pena said that he had not immediately agreed to work on a project with Mr Sinton and needed “more of a moral guarantee from him”.
- 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