Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors

Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors

The Court held that all six documents (the three 2009 letters and three further documents) were protected by absolute privilege as they had reference to the proceedings and were not wholly extraneous. The Judge below erred in law by applying incorrect tests for privilege. The claims based on these documents were therefore not actionable. The Judge was correct to strike out other claims as an abuse of process. Relief from sanctions was properly granted. The injunction was wrongly granted as there was no actionable conduct and no basis for restraining privileged statements.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mashood Iqbal; Defendant/respondent: Dean Manson Solicitors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (harassment, Privilege, Abuse of Process) / High Court Appeal From County Court Orders
Outcome
Defendants' appeal allowed; Claimant's appeal refused; injunction discharged; claim to be dismissed subject to submissions on form of order and costs.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Absolute Privilege, Abuse of Process, Relief From Sanctions, Injunctions
Civil Procedure Tort Law Harassment Absolute Privilege Abuse of Process Relief From Sanctions Injunctions

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashood Iqbal

Claimant/appellant

Dean Manson Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (harassment, Privilege, Abuse of Process) / High Court Appeal From County Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether absolute privilege/immunity attaches to the three 2009 letters and three further documents relied on as harassment
  2. 2 Whether it was an abuse of process for the Claimant to pursue harassment claims based on statements previously struck out in a libel action
  3. 3 Whether the Judge erred in granting the Defendants relief from sanctions and refusing default judgment to the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that all six documents (the three 2009 letters and three further documents) were protected by absolute privilege as they had reference to the proceedings and were not wholly extraneous. The Judge below erred in law by applying incorrect tests for privilege. The claims based on these documents were therefore not actionable. The Judge was correct to strike out other claims as an abuse of process. Relief from sanctions was properly granted. The injunction was wrongly granted as there was no actionable conduct and no basis for restraining privileged statements.

Court Disposition

Defendants' appeal allowed; Claimant's appeal refused; injunction discharged; claim to be dismissed subject to submissions on form of order and costs.

Orders

  • Injunction discharged
  • Claimant's claim to be dismissed (subject to submissions)