George v Cannell & Anor [2021] EWHC 2988 (QB) (09 November 2021)

George v Cannell & Anor [2021] EWHC 2988 (QB) (09 November 2021)

The claimant's contract did not contain a post-termination non-solicitation clause; the defendants' statements alleging breach of such restrictions were false. The Lingenfelder Email was published and defamatory, but the claimant failed to prove serious harm to reputation or recoverable loss. The defendants' truth defence failed as the imputation was not substantially true. Malice was not established. No actionable slander was published to Mr Gibbon or LCA clients. The claim for malicious falsehood also failed for lack of proof of loss.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2988
Parties
Claimant: Fiona George; First Defendant: Linda Cannell; Second Defendant: LCA Jobs Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Defamation, Malicious Falsehood / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Slander, Malicious Falsehood, Post Termination Restrictions, Truth Defence, Qualified Privilege, Malice
Defamation Employment Law Tort Libel Slander Malicious Falsehood Post Termination Restrictions Truth Defence +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona George

Claimant

Linda Cannell

First Defendant

LCA Jobs Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation, Malicious Falsehood / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants published defamatory statements about the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the statements caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' 'truth' defence succeeds

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's contract did not contain a post-termination non-solicitation clause; the defendants' statements alleging breach of such restrictions were false. The Lingenfelder Email was published and defamatory, but the claimant failed to prove serious harm to reputation or recoverable loss. The defendants' truth defence failed as the imputation was not substantially true. Malice was not established. No actionable slander was published to Mr Gibbon or LCA clients. The claim for malicious falsehood also failed for lack of proof of loss.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed