Underhill v Corser & Anor [2010] EWHC 1195 (QB) (27 May 2010)

Underhill v Corser & Anor [2010] EWHC 1195 (QB) (27 May 2010)

The court held that publication of the editorial to the 16 non-members occurred as admitted, but that the defendants failed to establish that all such publications were on occasions of qualified privilege, as not all recipients had a sufficient relationship or interest. The First Defendant (Corser) was not responsible for publication as there was insufficient evidence of authorisation or consent.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1195 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Stephen Underhill; First Defendant: Richard Corser; Second Defendant: Timothy Watson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Preliminary Issues Trial Before Judge Alone
Outcome
Partially in favour of claimant on preliminary issues; not all publications to non-members protected by qualified privilege; First Defendant not liable for publication.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Responsibility for Publication, Charity Trustee Duties
Defamation Charity Law Libel Qualified Privilege Responsibility for Publication Charity Trustee Duties

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Underhill

Claimant

Richard Corser

First Defendant

Timothy Watson

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Preliminary Issues Trial Before Judge Alone

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of the words complained of took place as pleaded and to whom
  2. 2 Whether any such publication to non-members was on an occasion of qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant (Corser) is legally responsible for the publication

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that publication of the editorial to the 16 non-members occurred as admitted, but that the defendants failed to establish that all such publications were on occasions of qualified privilege, as not all recipients had a sufficient relationship or interest. The First Defendant (Corser) was not responsible for publication as there was insufficient evidence of authorisation or consent.

Court Disposition

Partially in favour of claimant on preliminary issues; not all publications to non-members protected by qualified privilege; First Defendant not liable for publication.

Orders

  • Proceedings to continue to trial on remaining issues including malice and damages.