Parris v Ajayi & Ors [2021] EWHC 285 (QB) (12 February 2021)

Parris v Ajayi & Ors [2021] EWHC 285 (QB) (12 February 2021)

The court refused to strike out the claim or grant summary judgment for the defendants. The application to amend the defence was refused as the proposed amendments were late, lacked sufficient merit, and would prejudice the claimant. The court found that the issues of publication, malice, and damages involved factual disputes unsuitable for summary determination. The Johnson exclusion principle did not bar the claim as pleaded, and the Friend v CAA defence was not clearly applicable. The special damages claim for reference provision also raised factual issues requiring trial.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 285
Parties
Claimant: Catherine Mary Parris; First Defendant: Olanrewaju Ajayi; Second Defendant: SHC Clemsfold Group Limited; Third Defendant: SHC Rapkyns Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2021
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (libel and Malicious Falsehood) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend Defence, Strike Out, And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Defendants' application to amend the defence, strike out the claim, and/or for summary judgment dismissed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Qualified Privilege, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Abuse of Process, Amendment of Pleadings, Employment Dismissal, Damages, Reference Provision
Defamation Employment Law Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Qualified Privilege Summary Judgment Strike Out +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Mary Parris

Claimant

Olanrewaju Ajayi

First Defendant

SHC Clemsfold Group Limited

Second Defendant

SHC Rapkyns Group Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (libel and Malicious Falsehood) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend Defence, Strike Out, And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted for the defendants on grounds of consent/leave and licence to publication, the Johnson exclusion principle, or lack of real prospect of success on special damages for reference provision;
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be permitted to amend their defence to plead new grounds;
  3. 3 Whether the claim is an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle;

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to strike out the claim or grant summary judgment for the defendants. The application to amend the defence was refused as the proposed amendments were late, lacked sufficient merit, and would prejudice the claimant. The court found that the issues of publication, malice, and damages involved factual disputes unsuitable for summary determination. The Johnson exclusion principle did not bar the claim as pleaded, and the Friend v CAA defence was not clearly applicable. The special damages claim for reference provision also raised factual issues requiring trial.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to amend the defence, strike out the claim, and/or for summary judgment dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to amend defence refused.
  • Application to strike out claim refused.