Thompson v James & Anor [2013] EWHC 515 (QB) (15 March 2013)

Thompson v James & Anor [2013] EWHC 515 (QB) (15 March 2013)

The court found that Mr James's statements about Mrs Thompson were substantially true, particularly regarding her campaign of harassment and the making of knowingly false allegations. The court also found that Mrs Thompson's blog posts about Mr James were defamatory and not protected by the defence of honest comment or truth, as she had no factual basis for her allegations of corruption, lying, or misuse of funds. The respective claims and counterclaims were determined on the basis of the truth of the statements and the absence of valid defences.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 515
Parties
Claimant and Part 20 Defendant: Jacqueline Thompson; First Defendant and Part 20 Claimant: Mark James; Second Defendant: Carmarthenshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Libel/defamation / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds in part
Legal Topics
Libel, Honest Comment, Qualified Privilege, Truth Defence, Harassment, Public Authority Liability
Defamation Media Law Public Law Libel Honest Comment Qualified Privilege Truth Defence Harassment +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Thompson

Claimant and Part 20 Defendant

Mark James

First Defendant and Part 20 Claimant

Carmarthenshire County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel/defamation / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter written by Mr James was defamatory of Mrs Thompson
  2. 2 Whether the statements made by Mrs Thompson on her blog were defamatory of Mr James
  3. 3 Whether the defences of truth, honest comment, or qualified privilege applied to the respective publications

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr James's statements about Mrs Thompson were substantially true, particularly regarding her campaign of harassment and the making of knowingly false allegations. The court also found that Mrs Thompson's blog posts about Mr James were defamatory and not protected by the defence of honest comment or truth, as she had no factual basis for her allegations of corruption, lying, or misuse of funds. The respective claims and counterclaims were determined on the basis of the truth of the statements and the absence of valid defences.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds in part

Orders

  • Mrs Thompson's claim for libel against Mr James and the Council is dismissed.
  • Mr James's counterclaim for libel against Mrs Thompson succeeds in respect of certain blog posts.