Jerrard v Blyth & Ors

Jerrard v Blyth & Ors

The proceedings against the Third Defendant were set aside because he was never served, was not notified as required by the pre-action protocol, and was left in procedural uncertainty, contrary to the overriding objective and professional obligations. Indemnity costs were justified due to the Claimant's and his solicitors' conduct, which was outside the norm and caused unnecessary expense.

Parties
Claimant: Donald George Jerrard; First Defendant: Hamish Blyth; Second Defendant: Jeremy Austin Olsen; Third Defendant: Anthony Groves
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Application; Order on Setting Aside Claim and Costs
Outcome
Application by Third Defendant granted; claim against Third Defendant set aside; indemnity costs awarded against Claimant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Service of Process, Costs (indemnity Basis), Setting Aside Proceedings
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Service of Process Costs (indemnity Basis) Setting Aside Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald George Jerrard

Claimant

Hamish Blyth

First Defendant

Jeremy Austin Olsen

Second Defendant

Anthony Groves

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Application; Order on Setting Aside Claim and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings against the Third Defendant should be set aside for lack of service and procedural impropriety
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the Claimant for conduct towards the Third Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings against the Third Defendant were set aside because he was never served, was not notified as required by the pre-action protocol, and was left in procedural uncertainty, contrary to the overriding objective and professional obligations. Indemnity costs were justified due to the Claimant's and his solicitors' conduct, which was outside the norm and caused unnecessary expense.

Court Disposition

Application by Third Defendant granted; claim against Third Defendant set aside; indemnity costs awarded against Claimant.

Orders

  • Claim against Third Defendant set aside.
  • Claimant to pay Third Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis.