David v Gabriel & Ors [2016] EWHC 2799 (QB) (01 November 2016)

David v Gabriel & Ors [2016] EWHC 2799 (QB) (01 November 2016)

The claimant's pleadings are fundamentally deficient, failing to identify the words complained of, the particulars of alleged breaches, or to meet statutory thresholds. The claims disclose no reasonable grounds and are struck out under CPR 3.4. The High Court lacks jurisdiction over the Equality Act claim. Even if particulars were sufficient, the claims would fail on the merits or be subject to qualified privilege.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2799
Parties
Claimant: Kofoworola Adeolu David; First Defendant: Marie Gabriel; Second Defendant: Alice Wyman; Third Defendant: East London NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
All claims struck out
Legal Topics
Defamation Claims, Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 1998, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Malicious Falsehood, Qualified Privilege, Serious Harm Threshold, Jurisdiction, Pleading Requirements
Defamation Equality and Discrimination Law Data Protection Harassment Tort Defamation Claims Equality Act 2010 Data Protection Act 1998 +6 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kofoworola Adeolu David

Claimant

Marie Gabriel

First Defendant

Alice Wyman

Second Defendant

East London NHS Foundation Trust

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleadings in defamation, Equality Act, Data Protection Act, harassment, and malicious falsehood are sufficiently particularised to proceed
  2. 2 Whether the claims disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction over Equality Act claims

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's pleadings are fundamentally deficient, failing to identify the words complained of, the particulars of alleged breaches, or to meet statutory thresholds. The claims disclose no reasonable grounds and are struck out under CPR 3.4. The High Court lacks jurisdiction over the Equality Act claim. Even if particulars were sufficient, the claims would fail on the merits or be subject to qualified privilege.

Court Disposition

All claims struck out

Orders

  • All claims against all defendants are struck out under CPR 3.4
  • No further action to be taken on the claim