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 published statements were seriously defamatory of the Claimant, wholly false, and published without any lawful justification or privilege. The defence of qualified privilege failed as there was no duty or legitimate interest justifying publication on the scale that occurred, and in any event, malice was established. The Claimant, as a corporate entity, was entitled to general damages for injury to reputation and vindication, as well as an injunction and indemnity costs.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3159
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 / Final Judgment After Trial; Settlement With First Defendant; Judgment Against Third Defendant
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against the Third Defendant; settlement with the First Defendant; Second Defendant previously out of proceedings.
Legal Topics
Libel, Corporate Reputation, Qualified Privilege, Damages, Injunctions, Costs
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Corporate Reputation Qualified Privilege Damages Injunctions +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 4 Authorities cited 2 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 / Final Judgment After Trial; Settlement With First Defendant; Judgment Against Third Defendant

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 Assessment of damages for corporate libel

Ratio Decidendi

The published statements were seriously defamatory of the Claimant, wholly false, and published without any lawful justification or privilege. The defence of qualified privilege failed as there was no duty or legitimate interest justifying publication on the scale that occurred, and in any event, malice was established. The Claimant, as a corporate entity, was entitled to general damages for injury to reputation and vindication, as well as an injunction and indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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