Creative Resins International Ltd v Glasslam Europe Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 3159 (QB) (01 December 2006)

Creative Resins International Ltd v Glasslam Europe Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 3159 (QB) (01 December 2006)

The statements published by the Third Defendant were false and seriously defamatory of the Claimant, calculated to injure its commercial reputation. There was no basis for the defence of qualified privilege, as there was no duty or legitimate interest justifying publication on the scale that occurred. Even if qualified privilege applied, it would be defeated by malice, as the Defendant knew the statements were false and published them dishonestly. The Claimant, as a corporate entity, is entitled to general damages for injury to reputation and vindication, but not for injured feelings or special damages.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3159 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Creative Resins International Limited; First Defendant: Glasslam Europe Limited; Second Defendant: Donne Mileham & Haddock (A firm); Third Defendant: Stephen Howes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Final Judgment After Trial; Settlement With First Defendant; Judgment Against Third Defendant in Absence
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against the Third Defendant; settlement and Tomlin order with the First Defendant; Second Defendant out of proceedings.
Legal Topics
Libel, Corporate Reputation, Qualified Privilege, Damages for Defamation, Malice, Injunctions
Defamation Tort Media Law Libel Corporate Reputation Qualified Privilege Damages for Defamation Malice +1 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Creative Resins International Limited

Claimant

Glasslam Europe Limited

First Defendant

Donne Mileham & Haddock (A firm)

Second Defendant

Stephen Howes

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Final Judgment After Trial; Settlement With First Defendant; Judgment Against Third Defendant in Absence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published statements were defamatory of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applied to the Third Defendant's publication
  3. 3 Whether the publication was malicious

Ratio Decidendi

The statements published by the Third Defendant were false and seriously defamatory of the Claimant, calculated to injure its commercial reputation. There was no basis for the defence of qualified privilege, as there was no duty or legitimate interest justifying publication on the scale that occurred. Even if qualified privilege applied, it would be defeated by malice, as the Defendant knew the statements were false and published them dishonestly. The Claimant, as a corporate entity, is entitled to general damages for injury to reputation and vindication, but not for injured feelings or special damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant against the Third Defendant; settlement and Tomlin order with the First Defendant; Second Defendant out of proceedings.

Orders

  • Third Defendant to pay £15,000 general damages to the Claimant
  • Third Defendant to pay costs on the indemnity basis, with interim payment of £45,000 within 21 days, subject to detailed assessment