Clarke (t/a Elumina Iberica UK) v Bain & Anor [2008] EWHC 2636 (QB) (19 November 2008)

Clarke (t/a Elumina Iberica UK) v Bain & Anor [2008] EWHC 2636 (QB) (19 November 2008)

Certain pleaded meanings involving dishonesty and deceit are not capable of being borne by the words complained of; publications outside jurisdiction and separate publications relied upon solely in aggravation of damages should not be permitted due to case management concerns and lack of proper pleading; only injury to feelings, not reputation, is relevant for aggravated damages.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2636
Parties
Claimant: Kevin Clarke t/a Elumina Iberica UK; First Defendant: Lawrence D. Bain; Second Defendant: Prolink Holdings Corp
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Pre Trial Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Defendants' applications to strike out paragraphs 18.2, 18.3, and 18.7 of the Particulars of Claim are granted; Claimant's application to amend to insert proposed para 15.2 is refused except for deletion of paras 8, 9, and 10 by consent; Defendants' application to strike out para 18.1 fails; Rulings made on meanings...
Legal Topics
Aggravated Damages, Jurisdiction, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Case Management, Service Out of Jurisdiction
Defamation Civil Procedure Aggravated Damages Jurisdiction Meaning of Defamatory Statements Case Management Service Out of Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Clarke t/a Elumina Iberica UK

Claimant

Lawrence D. Bain

First Defendant

Prolink Holdings Corp

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Pre Trial Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain statements are capable of bearing pleaded defamatory meanings
  2. 2 Whether publications outside jurisdiction can be relied upon in aggravation of damages
  3. 3 Whether pleadings for aggravated damages are permissible for separate publications

Ratio Decidendi

Certain pleaded meanings involving dishonesty and deceit are not capable of being borne by the words complained of; publications outside jurisdiction and separate publications relied upon solely in aggravation of damages should not be permitted due to case management concerns and lack of proper pleading; only injury to feelings, not reputation, is relevant for aggravated damages.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications to strike out paragraphs 18.2, 18.3, and 18.7 of the Particulars of Claim are granted; Claimant's application to amend to insert proposed para 15.2 is refused except for deletion of paras 8, 9, and 10 by consent; Defendants' application to strike out para 18.1 fails; Rulings made on meanings...

Orders

  • Paragraphs 18.2, 18.3, and 18.7 of the Particulars of Claim struck out.
  • Permission to amend to insert proposed para 15.2 refused except for deletion of paras 8, 9, and 10 by consent.