Huda v Wells & Ors [2017] EWHC 2553 (QB) (16 October 2017)

Huda v Wells & Ors [2017] EWHC 2553 (QB) (16 October 2017)

The only potentially viable claim was the publication of the Report to the GOC by the Second Defendant in December 2016. However, such publication is protected by absolute privilege/immunity from suit as it was made to a statutory regulator in the course of its investigation. Even if only qualified privilege applied, the claimant has no real prospect of proving malice. Therefore, there is no real prospect of success for any of the claimant's claims, and permission to serve out must be set aside.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2553
Parties
Claimant: Badrul Huda; First Defendant: Lorraine Wells; Second Defendant: Mary Campfield; Third Defendant: Gavin Hendricks; Fourth Defendant: Susan Turnbull; Fifth Defendant: States of Jersey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Libel and Malicious Falsehood Action / Application to Set Aside Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction is set aside; claim dismissed as having no real prospect of success.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Jurisdiction, Absolute Privilege, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Service Out of Jurisdiction
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Jurisdiction Absolute Privilege Qualified Privilege +2 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 5 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Badrul Huda

Claimant

Lorraine Wells

First Defendant

Mary Campfield

Second Defendant

Gavin Hendricks

Third Defendant

Susan Turnbull

Fourth Defendant

States of Jersey

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Malicious Falsehood Action / Application to Set Aside Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to hear the claim against Jersey-based defendants for alleged defamatory/malicious falsehood publications to the General Osteopathic Council (GOC)
  2. 2 Whether the publications are protected by absolute or qualified privilege/immunity from suit
  3. 3 Whether there is a real prospect of success for the claimant's claims, including malice

Ratio Decidendi

The only potentially viable claim was the publication of the Report to the GOC by the Second Defendant in December 2016. However, such publication is protected by absolute privilege/immunity from suit as it was made to a statutory regulator in the course of its investigation. Even if only qualified privilege applied, the claimant has no real prospect of proving malice. Therefore, there is no real prospect of success for any of the claimant's claims, and permission to serve out must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction is set aside; claim dismissed as having no real prospect of success.

Orders

  • Permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction on the defendants is set aside.
  • Claim is dismissed.