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

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

The claims were struck out because they were inadequately particularised, failed to meet statutory thresholds (including serious harm for defamation), and/or were brought in the wrong forum. The claimant failed to identify the words complained of, the relevant breaches, or particulars of malice, and did not amend despite notice. The High Court lacked jurisdiction for Equality Act claims. No reasonable grounds for bringing the proceedings were disclosed.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2799 (QB)
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/summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Claims struck out
Legal Topics
Defamation—pleading Requirements, Qualified Privilege, Equality Act 2010—jurisdiction, Data Protection Act 1998—exemptions, Protection From Harassment Act 1997—course of Conduct, Malicious Falsehood—particulars of Malice
Defamation Equality and Discrimination Law Data Protection Harassment Tort Defamation—pleading Requirements Qualified Privilege Equality Act 2010—jurisdiction +3 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 12 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/summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleadings in defamation, Equality Act, Data Protection Act, harassment, and malicious falsehood are sufficient to proceed to trial
  2. 2 Whether the claims disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under the Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were struck out because they were inadequately particularised, failed to meet statutory thresholds (including serious harm for defamation), and/or were brought in the wrong forum. The claimant failed to identify the words complained of, the relevant breaches, or particulars of malice, and did not amend despite notice. The High Court lacked jurisdiction for Equality Act claims. No reasonable grounds for bringing the proceedings were disclosed.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out

Orders

  • All claims against the defendants are struck out under CPR 3.4
  • No trial on the merits will proceed