Building Register Ltd v Mark Weston & Anor

Building Register Ltd v Mark Weston & Anor

The proposed amendments to the Defence (paragraphs 4.1, 4.5, and related particulars) are not allowed. The allegations either do not engage with the specific sting of the libel as found by the court, or amount to an attempt to re-litigate issues already determined in the County Court proceedings between the parties, which constitutes an abuse of process. The particulars do not provide a sufficient evidential basis for the allegations of falsity or dishonesty regarding the usage statistics. The defendants are not precluded from defending the remainder of the claim, but the amendments sought are refused.

Parties
Claimant: Building Register Limited; First Defendant: Mark Weston; Second Defendant: All Clean Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Case Management Conference; Application for Permission to Re Amend Defence
Outcome
Application to amend Defence refused in respect of paragraphs 4.1, 4.5, 4.7-4.8, and 4.25-4.27; proceedings to continue on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Justification in Defamation, Honest Comment, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Permission to Amend Pleadings
Defamation Civil Procedure Res Judicata/abuse of Process Justification in Defamation Honest Comment Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process Permission to Amend Pleadings

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Building Register Limited

Claimant

Mark Weston

First Defendant

All Clean Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Case Management Conference; Application for Permission to Re Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendments to the Defence (justification and honest comment) should be allowed in light of previous County Court proceedings and findings
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments amount to an abuse of process or are precluded by issue estoppel/res judicata
  3. 3 Whether the particulars pleaded in support of justification/honest comment are sufficient and properly particularised

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments to the Defence (paragraphs 4.1, 4.5, and related particulars) are not allowed. The allegations either do not engage with the specific sting of the libel as found by the court, or amount to an attempt to re-litigate issues already determined in the County Court proceedings between the parties, which constitutes an abuse of process. The particulars do not provide a sufficient evidential basis for the allegations of falsity or dishonesty regarding the usage statistics. The defendants are not precluded from defending the remainder of the claim, but the amendments sought are refused.

Court Disposition

Application to amend Defence refused in respect of paragraphs 4.1, 4.5, 4.7-4.8, and 4.25-4.27; proceedings to continue on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Permission to amend Defence refused as to paragraphs 4.1, 4.5, 4.7-4.8, and 4.25-4.27 of the draft Re-Amended Defence.
  • Defendants permitted to defend the remainder of the claim on issues the court finds fair to try.