Heard v Kemp [2002] EWCA Civ 1506 (15 October 2002)
The claim was statute-barred as no relevant publication or republication by the defendant occurred within the one-year limitation period, and there was no adequate reason to extend time under section 32A of the Limitation Act. The judge's refusal to enlarge time was neither unreasonable nor wrong in law.
- Citation
- [2002] EWCA Civ 1506
- Parties
- Claimant/applicant: Gordon Heard; Defendant/respondent: Anthony E Kemp
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 15 October 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (libel) / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Decision
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Libel, Limitation Period, Extension of Time, Malice in Defamation, Republication
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gordon Heard
Claimant/applicant
Anthony E Kemp
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (libel) / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the libel claim was statute-barred under the Limitation Act
- 2 Whether there was any republication within the limitation period
- 3 Whether time for bringing the claim should be enlarged under section 32A of the Limitation Act
Ratio Decidendi
The claim was statute-barred as no relevant publication or republication by the defendant occurred within the one-year limitation period, and there was no adequate reason to extend time under section 32A of the Limitation Act. The judge's refusal to enlarge time was neither unreasonable nor wrong in law.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Application for permission to appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment