Clarke (t/a Elumina Iberica UK) v Bain & Anor

Clarke (t/a Elumina Iberica UK) v Bain & Anor

Meanings involving dishonesty pleaded in relation to certain publications are not capable of being borne by the words complained of; claims for aggravated damages relying on publications not actionable within jurisdiction or giving rise to separate causes of action are not permitted on case management grounds; pleadings for malice and injury to feelings must be precise and relate only to feelings, not reputation.

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 / Ruling on Applications to Strike Out/amend Pleadings and Meanings
Outcome
Applications to strike out paragraphs 18.2, 18.3, and 18.7 granted; permission to amend to insert proposed para 15.2 refused except for deletion of paras 8, 9, and 10 by consent; applications to strike out para 18.1 denied; rulings on meanings as specified.
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 5 Authorities cited 19 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 / Ruling on Applications to Strike Out/amend Pleadings and Meanings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain publications are capable of bearing pleaded defamatory meanings
  2. 2 Whether claims for aggravated damages can rely on publications not actionable within jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether pleadings for malice and injury to feelings are sufficient for aggravated damages

Ratio Decidendi

Meanings involving dishonesty pleaded in relation to certain publications are not capable of being borne by the words complained of; claims for aggravated damages relying on publications not actionable within jurisdiction or giving rise to separate causes of action are not permitted on case management grounds; pleadings for malice and injury to feelings must be precise and relate only to feelings, not reputation.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out paragraphs 18.2, 18.3, and 18.7 granted; permission to amend to insert proposed para 15.2 refused except for deletion of paras 8, 9, and 10 by consent; applications to strike out para 18.1 denied; rulings on meanings as specified.

Orders

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