B v N & Anor [2002] EWHC 1692 (QB) (31 July 2002)

B v N & Anor [2002] EWHC 1692 (QB) (31 July 2002)

The application to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim against the second defendant is refused because, although unlikely, it cannot be said that no jury could find for the claimant on the issue of publication; the matter must be left to the jury. The application for a conditional order is also refused to avoid impeding access to justice. Costs follow the event, but the claimant's costs are reduced by £5,000 as the use of leading counsel was disproportionate for an interim application.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1692 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: B; First Defendant: N; Second Defendant: L
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment; Costs Determination
Outcome
Second defendant's applications for strike out, summary judgment, preliminary issue, and conditional order are dismissed. Claimant awarded costs of the applications, reduced by £5,000.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Justification, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Costs Orders
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Qualified Privilege Justification Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Costs Orders

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Claimant

N

First Defendant

L

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the second defendant (L) for publication of defamatory words should be struck out or dismissed by summary judgment for lack of reasonable grounds or prospect of success; whether a conditional order for costs should be made; whether costs should follow the event

Ratio Decidendi

The application to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim against the second defendant is refused because, although unlikely, it cannot be said that no jury could find for the claimant on the issue of publication; the matter must be left to the jury. The application for a conditional order is also refused to avoid impeding access to justice. Costs follow the event, but the claimant's costs are reduced by £5,000 as the use of leading counsel was disproportionate for an interim application.

Court Disposition

Second defendant's applications for strike out, summary judgment, preliminary issue, and conditional order are dismissed. Claimant awarded costs of the applications, reduced by £5,000.

Orders

  • Application to strike out or summarily dismiss claim against second defendant dismissed.
  • Application for preliminary issue dismissed.