| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2011] All ER (D) 33 (Apr) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2011] EWHC 781 (QB) |
| Court: | Queen's Bench Division |
| Judge: | Tugendhat J |
| Representation | Desmond Browne QC and William Bennett (instructed by Taylor Hampton LLP) for the claimant. |
| Jacob Dean (instructed by Metropolitan Police Legal Services) for the first defendant. | |
| The second and third defendants did not appear and were not represented. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 31 March 2011 |
Catchwords
Libel and slander - Defamatory words - Words capable of defamatory meaning - Claimant commencing proceedings in libel in relation to email written by first defendant's lawyer - First defendant pleading defence of qualified privilege - First defendant applying for ruling on meaning, summary judgment in its favour on defence of qualified privilege and that claim be struck out as abuse of process of court - Whether words complained of capable of bearing attributed meanings - Whether summary judgment should be entered on defence of qualified privilege - Whether claim should be struck out as abuse of process.
The Case
Libel and slander Defamatory words. The Queen's Bench Division held that words complained of as against the first defendant were capable of bearing the meaning attributed to them by the claimant.
Lexis®Library
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
