Crossley & Anor v Wallace & Anor [2008] EWHC 2846 (QB) (10 October 2008)

Crossley & Anor v Wallace & Anor [2008] EWHC 2846 (QB) (10 October 2008)

The statements attributed to the Wallaces in the article were justified by prior judicial findings and were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning beyond what had already been established in previous litigation. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds and was an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate issues already decided. The Master was correct to strike out the claim under CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) and (b).

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2846
Parties
Appellants: Mr and Mrs Crossley; Respondents: Mr and Mrs Wallace
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, Nuisance, Trespass, Costs
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process Nuisance Trespass Costs

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs Crossley

Appellants

Mr and Mrs Wallace

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements in the newspaper article attributed to the Wallaces were capable of being defamatory of the Crossleys
  2. 2 Whether the claim against the Wallaces for libel disclosed reasonable grounds or was an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the Master was correct to strike out the claim under CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) and (b)

Ratio Decidendi

The statements attributed to the Wallaces in the article were justified by prior judicial findings and were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning beyond what had already been established in previous litigation. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds and was an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate issues already decided. The Master was correct to strike out the claim under CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) and (b).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; order of Master Miller striking out the claim against the Wallaces affirmed