David v Gabriel & Ors

David v Gabriel & Ors

The claimant's pleadings were fundamentally defective for failure to specify the words complained of, the alleged breaches, or particulars of malice. The claims did not meet the threshold for serious harm, were inadequately particularised, and in some cases were brought in the wrong forum. The claims disclosed no reasonable grounds and were struck out under CPR 3.4.

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 Application
Outcome
Claims struck out
Legal Topics
Defamation—pleading Requirements, Qualified Privilege, Equality Act 2010—jurisdiction, Data Protection Act 1998—breach, Protection From Harassment Act 1997—course of Conduct, Malicious Falsehood—pleading Malice
Defamation Equality and Discrimination Law Data Protection Harassment Malicious Falsehood 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 13 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 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleadings in defamation, harassment, data protection, equality, and malicious falsehood are sufficient to proceed
  2. 2 Whether the claims disclose reasonable grounds or are an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under the Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's pleadings were fundamentally defective for failure to specify the words complained of, the alleged breaches, or particulars of malice. The claims did not meet the threshold for serious harm, were inadequately particularised, and in some cases were brought in the wrong forum. The claims disclosed no reasonable grounds and were struck out under CPR 3.4.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out

Orders

  • All claims struck out under CPR 3.4
  • No permission to amend granted