Thompson v James & Anor

Thompson v James & Anor

The court found that the words published by Mr James about Mrs Thompson were true in their defamatory meanings: Mrs Thompson had conducted an unlawful and vindictive campaign of harassment, intimidation, and defamation against Council staff and members, including making a knowingly false complaint to the police in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The defences of justification and qualified privilege succeeded. The counterclaim by Mr James succeeded in part: three of Mrs Thompson's blog posts were defamatory and untrue, motivated by malice, and not protected by honest comment; two posts were not actionable. The claim for damages by Mr James was allowed.

Parties
Claimant and Part 20 Defendant: Jacqueline Thompson; First Defendant and Part 20 Claimant: Mark James; Second Defendant: Carmarthenshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (libel) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part; damages awarded to Mr James
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Honest Comment, Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Indemnity for Legal Costs, Abuse of Process
Defamation Public Law Human Rights Libel Qualified Privilege Honest Comment Harassment Freedom of Expression +4 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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Thompson

Claimant and Part 20 Defendant

Mark James

First Defendant and Part 20 Claimant

Carmarthenshire County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (libel) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words published by Mark James about Jacqueline Thompson were defamatory and untrue
  2. 2 Whether the words published by Jacqueline Thompson about Mark James were defamatory and untrue
  3. 3 Whether the Council's indemnity for Mr James' legal costs was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the words published by Mr James about Mrs Thompson were true in their defamatory meanings: Mrs Thompson had conducted an unlawful and vindictive campaign of harassment, intimidation, and defamation against Council staff and members, including making a knowingly false complaint to the police in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The defences of justification and qualified privilege succeeded. The counterclaim by Mr James succeeded in part: three of Mrs Thompson's blog posts were defamatory and untrue, motivated by malice, and not protected by honest comment; two posts were not actionable. The claim for damages by Mr James was allowed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part; damages awarded to Mr James

Orders

  • Mrs Thompson's claim is dismissed in its entirety.
  • Judgment for Mr James on the counterclaim in respect of the postings dated 28 February 2011, 22 March 2011, and 6 April 2011.