Underhill v Corser & Anor

Underhill v Corser & Anor

Publication of the words complained of was made to about 13 non-members through the non-member mailing list. None of these publications were on occasions of qualified privilege, as the non-members did not have a sufficient interest or duty to receive the information. The First Defendant is not responsible in law for any of the publications, as his knowledge and inaction did not amount to authorisation or consent to publication.

Parties
Claimant: Stephen Underhill; First Defendant: Richard Corser; Second Defendant: Timothy Watson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; findings for Claimant on publication and qualified privilege; findings for First Defendant on responsibility.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Responsibility for Publication, Abuse of Process
Defamation Tort Law Civil Procedure Libel Qualified Privilege Responsibility for Publication Abuse of Process

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Underhill

Claimant

Richard Corser

First Defendant

Timothy Watson

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of the words pleaded took place to non-members as alleged
  2. 2 Whether such publication was on an occasion of qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant is responsible in law for any of the publications

Ratio Decidendi

Publication of the words complained of was made to about 13 non-members through the non-member mailing list. None of these publications were on occasions of qualified privilege, as the non-members did not have a sufficient interest or duty to receive the information. The First Defendant is not responsible in law for any of the publications, as his knowledge and inaction did not amount to authorisation or consent to publication.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; findings for Claimant on publication and qualified privilege; findings for First Defendant on responsibility.

Orders

  • Publication of the words pleaded in para 3 of the Amended Particulars of Claim was made to about 13 non-members through the non-member mailing list.
  • None of these publications were on occasions of qualified privilege.