Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 92 (23 January 2001)

Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 92 (23 January 2001)

There is no realistic prospect of success in appealing the refusal to strike out or stay the claim, as the exclusion order is not equivalent to a previous conviction, its admissibility is uncertain, and the claimant is prima facie entitled to bring the action to clear his name. The trial judge retains discretion on evidentiary matters, and the development allowing the claimant to attend trial removes the basis for a stay.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 92
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Grigori Loutchansky; Defendant/applicant: Times Newspapers Limited; Defendant/applicant: Peter Stothard; Defendant/applicant: David Lister; Defendant/applicant: James Bone
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out or Stay Claim
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Libel, Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, Case Management, Damages, Admissibility of Evidence
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process Case Management Damages Admissibility of Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grigori Loutchansky

Claimant/respondent

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant/applicant

Peter Stothard

Defendant/applicant

David Lister

Defendant/applicant

James Bone

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out or Stay Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out or stayed on the basis that the claimant would only recover nominal damages due to alleged bad reputation
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion order against the claimant is admissible as evidence of bad reputation
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to allow the claimant to attend trial justifies a stay

Ratio Decidendi

There is no realistic prospect of success in appealing the refusal to strike out or stay the claim, as the exclusion order is not equivalent to a previous conviction, its admissibility is uncertain, and the claimant is prima facie entitled to bring the action to clear his name. The trial judge retains discretion on evidentiary matters, and the development allowing the claimant to attend trial removes the basis for a stay.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against refusal to strike out or stay the claim is refused