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. There is no necessity to extend absolute privilege to communications made in the context of a Child Protection Conference. The public interest is adequately protected by the defence of qualified privilege, which allows for redress in cases of malice. The claimant's Article 8 rights are engaged, but so are those of the child, and the balancing of these interests does not justify absolute immunity for the defendants.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2866 (QB)
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
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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
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 statements made in a child protection conference report by local authority social workers are protected by absolute privilege in defamation law
  2. 2 Whether the defence of absolute privilege should be extended to such communications under common law or statute
  3. 3 Whether qualified privilege is sufficient protection for such communications

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of were not published on an occasion of absolute privilege. There is no necessity to extend absolute privilege to communications made in the context of a Child Protection Conference. The public interest is adequately protected by the defence of qualified privilege, which allows for redress in cases of malice. The claimant's Article 8 rights are engaged, but so are those of the child, and the balancing of these interests does not justify absolute immunity for the defendants.

Court Disposition

Defence of absolute privilege rejected

Orders

  • The plea of absolute privilege is dismissed. The case may proceed on the basis of qualified privilege and other issues as appropriate.