Hughes v Risbridger & Anor [2009] EWHC 3244 (QB) (09 December 2009)

Hughes v Risbridger & Anor [2009] EWHC 3244 (QB) (09 December 2009)

The claimant's plea of malice is not so weak that it should be struck out at this stage; a fact-finding tribunal could rationally infer malice from the facts pleaded. The application for summary judgment is refused. The claimant's proposed amendments to add further publishees are too vague and are refused.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3244 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Peter Hughes; First Defendant: William Risbridger (sued as 'Bill Risbridger'); Second Defendant: British Airways Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Summary Judgment Application by Defendants
Outcome
Defendants' application for summary judgment refused; Claimant's applications to amend pleadings refused.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Summary Judgment, Pleading Amendments
Defamation Employment Law Libel Qualified Privilege Malice Summary Judgment Pleading Amendments

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Hughes

Claimant

William Risbridger (sued as 'Bill Risbridger')

First Defendant

British Airways Plc

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Summary Judgment Application by Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of qualified privilege is defeated by malice in the context of internal emails alleging theft
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's plea of malice has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend pleadings to add further publishees

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's plea of malice is not so weak that it should be struck out at this stage; a fact-finding tribunal could rationally infer malice from the facts pleaded. The application for summary judgment is refused. The claimant's proposed amendments to add further publishees are too vague and are refused.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for summary judgment refused; Claimant's applications to amend pleadings refused.

Orders

  • Defendants' application for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • Claimant's applications to amend the particulars of claim and reply are refused.