Johnson v McArdle & Anor [2020] EWHC 644 (QB) (18 March 2020)

Johnson v McArdle & Anor [2020] EWHC 644 (QB) (18 March 2020)

The Particulars of Claim failed to plead with sufficient particularity the facts and matters necessary to establish serious harm to reputation as required by s.1 of the Defamation Act 2013 and Practice Direction 53B. The pleadings were also incoherent and insufficient regarding falsity and malice for malicious falsehood. Accordingly, the Particulars of Claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claims in libel or malicious falsehood.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 644
Parties
Claimant: Matthew Johnson; 1st Defendant: Alanna McArdle; 2nd Defendant: XYZ
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Libel and Malicious Falsehood / Strike Out Application of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Particulars of Claim struck out against both Defendants; Claimant permitted to apply to amend within 28 days; Claim Form not struck out.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Pleading Requirements, Serious Harm, Practice Direction 53 B, Malice, Falsity
Defamation Media Law Libel Malicious Falsehood Pleading Requirements Serious Harm Practice Direction 53 B Malice +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Johnson

Claimant

Alanna McArdle

1st Defendant

XYZ

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Malicious Falsehood / Strike Out Application of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Particulars of Claim disclose reasonable grounds for bringing claims in libel and malicious falsehood against the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the Particulars of Claim comply with Practice Direction 53B, paragraph 4.2(3) regarding serious harm
  3. 3 Whether the Particulars of Claim adequately plead falsity and malice for malicious falsehood

Ratio Decidendi

The Particulars of Claim failed to plead with sufficient particularity the facts and matters necessary to establish serious harm to reputation as required by s.1 of the Defamation Act 2013 and Practice Direction 53B. The pleadings were also incoherent and insufficient regarding falsity and malice for malicious falsehood. Accordingly, the Particulars of Claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claims in libel or malicious falsehood.

Court Disposition

Particulars of Claim struck out against both Defendants; Claimant permitted to apply to amend within 28 days; Claim Form not struck out.

Orders

  • Particulars of Claim struck out as against both Defendants.
  • Claimant permitted to apply to serve amended Particulars of Claim within 28 days.