W v Westminster City Council & Ors [2004] EWHC 2866 (QB) (09 December 2004)

W v Westminster City Council & Ors [2004] EWHC 2866 (QB) (09 December 2004)

The words complained of were not published on an occasion of absolute privilege. The necessity test for absolute privilege is not satisfied for communications made in child protection conferences. Qualified privilege, not absolute privilege, is the appropriate defence, allowing for a case-by-case balancing of interests, including the claimant's right to vindicate his reputation and the public interest in child protection.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2866
Parties
Claimant: W; First Defendant: Westminster City Council; Second Defendant: Anca Marks; Third Defendant: James Thomas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Reserved Judgment on the Issue of Absolute Privilege
Outcome
Defence of absolute privilege rejected; case to proceed on basis of qualified privilege.
Legal Topics
Absolute Privilege, Qualified Privilege, Children Act 1989, Human Rights Act 1998, Child Protection Conferences, Reputation and Article 8 ECHR
Defamation Public Law Human Rights Absolute Privilege Qualified Privilege Children Act 1989 Human Rights Act 1998 Child Protection Conferences +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Claimant

Westminster City Council

First Defendant

Anca Marks

Second Defendant

James Thomas

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Reserved Judgment on the Issue of Absolute Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether absolute privilege attaches to statements made by social workers in reports for child protection case conferences under the Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies
  3. 3 Balancing Article 8 rights of the claimant and the child

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of were not published on an occasion of absolute privilege. The necessity test for absolute privilege is not satisfied for communications made in child protection conferences. Qualified privilege, not absolute privilege, is the appropriate defence, allowing for a case-by-case balancing of interests, including the claimant's right to vindicate his reputation and the public interest in child protection.

Court Disposition

Defence of absolute privilege rejected; case to proceed on basis of qualified privilege.

Orders

  • The plea of absolute privilege is dismissed.