Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham & Ors [2013] EWHC 795 (QB) (11 April 2013)

Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham & Ors [2013] EWHC 795 (QB) (11 April 2013)

The application for an interim injunction was refused because the statements the claimant sought to restrain were made or anticipated to be made in the course of defending Employment Tribunal proceedings and were likely protected by absolute privilege. The claim did not fall within the rare category where no defence could succeed at trial, and the pleaded case was unsatisfactory. The application was also considered an abuse of process, seeking to interfere with the ET's jurisdiction. The High Court proceedings were stayed as against the First to Seventh Defendants because the ET was the appropriate and first-seised forum for the employment-related claims, and there was a strong public...

Citation
[2013] EWHC 795
Parties
Claimant: Ms Ayodele Adele Vaughan; First Defendant: London Borough of Lewisham; Second Defendant: Ralph Wilkinson; Third Defendant: Christine Grice; Fourth Defendant: Elaine Smith; Fifth Defendant: Valerie Gonsalves; Sixth Defendant: Elaine Hattam; Seventh Defendant: Kate Parsley; Eighth Defendant: Dr. Anthony Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2013
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications (interim Injunction, Permission to Amend, Application for Stay)
Outcome
Claimant's application for interim injunction refused; claim against First to Seventh Defendants stayed pending resolution of Employment Tribunal proceedings or further order; issue of stay against Eighth Defendant deferred to hearing of his strike-out application.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Absolute Privilege, Stay of Proceedings, Malicious Falsehood, Employment Tribunal Parallel Proceedings, Protection From Harassment Act 1997
Defamation Employment Law Harassment Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Absolute Privilege Stay of Proceedings Malicious Falsehood +2 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Ayodele Adele Vaughan

Claimant

London Borough of Lewisham

First Defendant

Ralph Wilkinson

Second Defendant

Christine Grice

Third Defendant

Elaine Smith

Fourth Defendant

Valerie Gonsalves

Fifth Defendant

Elaine Hattam

Sixth Defendant

Kate Parsley

Seventh Defendant

Dr. Anthony Williams

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications (interim Injunction, Permission to Amend, Application for Stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining alleged defamatory and harassing statements by the defendants in the context of ongoing Employment Tribunal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the High Court proceedings should be stayed pending resolution of Employment Tribunal claims
  3. 3 Whether the claim for malicious falsehood should be permitted by amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an interim injunction was refused because the statements the claimant sought to restrain were made or anticipated to be made in the course of defending Employment Tribunal proceedings and were likely protected by absolute privilege. The claim did not fall within the rare category where no defence could succeed at trial, and the pleaded case was unsatisfactory. The application was also considered an abuse of process, seeking to interfere with the ET's jurisdiction. The High Court proceedings were stayed as against the First to Seventh Defendants because the ET was the appropriate and first-seised forum for the employment-related claims, and there was a strong public...

Court Disposition

Claimant's application for interim injunction refused; claim against First to Seventh Defendants stayed pending resolution of Employment Tribunal proceedings or further order; issue of stay against Eighth Defendant deferred to hearing of his strike-out application.

Orders

  • Refusal of interim injunction sought by claimant
  • Stay of proceedings against First to Seventh Defendants