Barry v Butler & Anor [2015] EWHC 447 (QB) (25 February 2015)

Barry v Butler & Anor [2015] EWHC 447 (QB) (25 February 2015)

The plea of malice was struck out because it was not supported by specific facts more consistent with malice than its absence, but rather consisted of bare assertions and equivocal conduct. Judgment was not entered for the defendants on the second email because privilege was disputed and summary judgment requirements were not met. The claimant was ordered to provide proper disclosure on special damages or have that claim struck out. The trial was confined to the issues of meaning and qualified privilege due to late and incomplete disclosure and fairness to the defendants.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 447
Parties
Claimant: Christopher Barry; First Defendant: Alison Butler; Second Defendant: Rapidguard Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Pre Trial Review and Hearing of Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Plea of malice struck out; unless order for disclosure on special damages; trial confined to meaning and qualified privilege; other applications refused or deferred.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Disclosure, Special Damages, Case Management
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Qualified Privilege Malice Disclosure Special Damages Case Management

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Barry

Claimant

Alison Butler

First Defendant

Rapidguard Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Pre Trial Review and Hearing of Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plea of malice should be struck out for lack of proper particularisation
  2. 2 Whether judgment should be entered for the defendants in respect of the 18 January 2012 email
  3. 3 Whether the claimant should be required to provide further disclosure on special damages, failing which the claim for special damages should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The plea of malice was struck out because it was not supported by specific facts more consistent with malice than its absence, but rather consisted of bare assertions and equivocal conduct. Judgment was not entered for the defendants on the second email because privilege was disputed and summary judgment requirements were not met. The claimant was ordered to provide proper disclosure on special damages or have that claim struck out. The trial was confined to the issues of meaning and qualified privilege due to late and incomplete disclosure and fairness to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Plea of malice struck out; unless order for disclosure on special damages; trial confined to meaning and qualified privilege; other applications refused or deferred.

Orders

  • Plea of malice struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)
  • Unless claimant provides disclosure on special damages by 27 February 2015, that claim is struck out