Building Register Ltd v Mark Weston & Anor [2014] EWHC 2361 (QB) (17 July 2014)

Building Register Ltd v Mark Weston & Anor [2014] EWHC 2361 (QB) (17 July 2014)

Permission to amend the defence is refused for paragraphs 4.1 and 4.5 and their particulars, as they constitute an impermissible attempt to re-litigate matters already decided in County Court proceedings and do not match the sting of the defamatory meanings. The proposed amendments relating to usage statistics are factually deficient and do not provide proper particulars. The court applies the principles of issue estoppel and abuse of process, finding that the defendants are barred from advancing these defences in the present proceedings.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2361 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Building Register Limited; First Defendant: Mark Weston; Second Defendant: All Clean Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Case Management Conference
Outcome
Permission to amend refused for paragraphs 4.1 and 4.5 and their particulars; permission refused for amendments relating to usage statistics.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification, Honest Comment, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Pleading Amendments
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Justification Honest Comment Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Building Register Limited

Claimant

Mark Weston

First Defendant

All Clean Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Case Management Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants may amend their defence to plead justification and honest comment for defamatory meanings found by Dingemans J
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments constitute an abuse of process or are barred by issue estoppel due to prior County Court proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of justification match the sting of the defamatory meanings

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the defence is refused for paragraphs 4.1 and 4.5 and their particulars, as they constitute an impermissible attempt to re-litigate matters already decided in County Court proceedings and do not match the sting of the defamatory meanings. The proposed amendments relating to usage statistics are factually deficient and do not provide proper particulars. The court applies the principles of issue estoppel and abuse of process, finding that the defendants are barred from advancing these defences in the present proceedings.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend refused for paragraphs 4.1 and 4.5 and their particulars; permission refused for amendments relating to usage statistics.

Orders

  • Defendants are barred from advancing defences of justification and honest comment based on paragraphs 4.1 and 4.5 and usage statistics.
  • Proceedings to continue on remaining issues.