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

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

The court found that the defendants published defamatory statements to Mr Lingenfelder and Mr Butler, falsely alleging the claimant breached post-termination contractual restrictions which did not exist. The truth defence failed as the statements were not substantially true. The claimant gave assurances but there was no contractual restriction. Malice was not established. Serious harm to reputation was not proved on the evidence. The claim for malicious falsehood also failed as there was no proof of falsity made maliciously or special damage.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2988 (QB)
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 (libel, Slander, Malicious Falsehood) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Slander, Malicious Falsehood, Truth Defence, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Post Termination Restrictions, Employment Contracts
Defamation Employment Law Tort Libel Slander Malicious Falsehood Truth Defence Qualified Privilege +3 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 4 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 (libel, Slander, 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 truth defence under s.2(1) Defamation Act 2013 applies

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants published defamatory statements to Mr Lingenfelder and Mr Butler, falsely alleging the claimant breached post-termination contractual restrictions which did not exist. The truth defence failed as the statements were not substantially true. The claimant gave assurances but there was no contractual restriction. Malice was not established. Serious harm to reputation was not proved on the evidence. The claim for malicious falsehood also failed as there was no proof of falsity made maliciously or special damage.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed