Peck Williams Trade Supplies Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 966 (QB) (23 April 2020)

Peck Williams Trade Supplies Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 966 (QB) (23 April 2020)

The Email's natural and ordinary meaning is that the Claimant was unfit (or unable) satisfactorily to perform the role of sales representative of Grant because, in his past dealings with the First Defendant's sales team, he had consistently fallen seriously below the standards to be expected of a competent and diligent sales representative. The words up to 'because' are an expression of opinion, and the remainder is an allegation of fact. Both elements are defamatory at common law. The Email indicated the basis of the opinion expressed. The Defendants have demonstrated the first and second conditions for the defence of honest opinion under s.3 Defamation Act 2013.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 966 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Peck; First Defendant: Williams Trade Supplies Limited; Second Defendant: Miquel Goddard (known as Micky Goddard)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Malicious Falsehood Claim / Preliminary Issues Determination
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; meaning found; both fact and opinion elements held defamatory at common law; basis of opinion indicated; Defendants demonstrated first and second conditions for honest opinion defence; issue (v) on malicious falsehood not determined.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Negligent Misstatement, Data Protection Act 1998, Defamation Act 2013, Defamation Act 1952, Honest Opinion Defence, Qualified Privilege, Truth Defence
Defamation Tort Media Law Data Protection Libel Malicious Falsehood Negligent Misstatement Data Protection Act 1998 +5 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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Peck

Claimant

Williams Trade Supplies Limited

First Defendant

Miquel Goddard (known as Micky Goddard)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Malicious Falsehood Claim / Preliminary Issues Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Email for the purposes of the defamation claim?
  2. 2 Is the meaning of the Email defamatory at common law?
  3. 3 Does the Email convey a statement of fact or an expression of opinion?

Ratio Decidendi

The Email's natural and ordinary meaning is that the Claimant was unfit (or unable) satisfactorily to perform the role of sales representative of Grant because, in his past dealings with the First Defendant's sales team, he had consistently fallen seriously below the standards to be expected of a competent and diligent sales representative. The words up to 'because' are an expression of opinion, and the remainder is an allegation of fact. Both elements are defamatory at common law. The Email indicated the basis of the opinion expressed. The Defendants have demonstrated the first and second conditions for the defence of honest opinion under s.3 Defamation Act 2013.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; meaning found; both fact and opinion elements held defamatory at common law; basis of opinion indicated; Defendants demonstrated first and second conditions for honest opinion defence; issue (v) on malicious falsehood not determined.