Samuel Collingwood Smith v Sonia Poulton

Samuel Collingwood Smith v Sonia Poulton

The appeal was dismissed because the Deputy Master was entitled, as a matter of discretion, to refuse to strike out the challenged particulars. The pleaded case in harassment must be considered as a whole at trial, and the legal issues raised—absolute privilege and journalistic protection—were not suitable for summary determination. The application to strike out was also made too late, contrary to the overriding objective and practice directions.

Parties
Appellant/third Party: Samuel Collingwood Smith; Respondent/defendant: Sonia Poulton; Respondent/claimant: John Hemming; Respondent/fourth Party: Darren Laverty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Master to High Court Judge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Harassment, Strike Out Applications, Absolute Privilege, Freedom of Expression, Case Management, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Tort Harassment Strike Out Applications Absolute Privilege Freedom of Expression Case Management Abuse of Process

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Collingwood Smith

Appellant/third Party

Sonia Poulton

Respondent/defendant

John Hemming

Respondent/claimant

Darren Laverty

Respondent/fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Master to High Court Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Master erred in refusing to strike out certain particulars of harassment as disclosing no reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b)
  2. 2 Whether certain particulars were otiose, barred by absolute privilege, or protected journalistic material
  3. 3 Whether the application to strike out was made too late and/or was an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Deputy Master was entitled, as a matter of discretion, to refuse to strike out the challenged particulars. The pleaded case in harassment must be considered as a whole at trial, and the legal issues raised—absolute privilege and journalistic protection—were not suitable for summary determination. The application to strike out was also made too late, contrary to the overriding objective and practice directions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Ms Poulton to clarify, pursuant to CPR Rule 18, whether she intends to rely on the particulars relating solely to Mr Laverty and, if so, the basis for their relevance.