Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham & Ors

Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham & Ors

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because the Claimant abandoned parallel Employment Tribunal proceedings, which were the appropriate forum for her complaints, in order to pursue the High Court action. This was a tactical and disproportionate use of court resources, contrary to the overriding objective and public interest in finality and economy. The limited publication relied upon meant there was no real and substantial tort, and any vindication could have been achieved in the Tribunal. The occasions of publication were covered by qualified privilege. The malice claim could not be summarily dismissed but did not alter the outcome.

Parties
Claimant: Ayodele Adele Vaughan; First Defendant: London Borough of Lewisham; Second Defendant: Ralph Wilkinson; Third Defendant: Christine Grice; Fourth Defendant: Elaine Smith; Fifth Defendant: Valerie Gonsalves; Sixth Defendant: Elaine Hattam; Seventh Defendant: Kate Parsley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation/employment) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out as abuse of process; Claimant's application dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Case Management, Strike Out Applications
Defamation Employment Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Qualified Privilege Malice Case Management Strike Out Applications

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ayodele Adele Vaughan

Claimant

London Borough of Lewisham

First Defendant

Ralph Wilkinson

Second Defendant

Christine Grice

Third Defendant

Elaine Smith

Fourth Defendant

Valerie Gonsalves

Fifth Defendant

Elaine Hattam

Sixth Defendant

Kate Parsley

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation/employment) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court claim for libel should be struck out as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the publications were protected by qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the claim for malice could proceed to trial

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because the Claimant abandoned parallel Employment Tribunal proceedings, which were the appropriate forum for her complaints, in order to pursue the High Court action. This was a tactical and disproportionate use of court resources, contrary to the overriding objective and public interest in finality and economy. The limited publication relied upon meant there was no real and substantial tort, and any vindication could have been achieved in the Tribunal. The occasions of publication were covered by qualified privilege. The malice claim could not be summarily dismissed but did not alter the outcome.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as abuse of process; Claimant's application dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is struck out in its entirety.
  • The Claimant's application to strike out the defence is dismissed.