Johnson v McArdle & Anor

Johnson v McArdle & Anor

The Particulars of Claim did not comply with Practice Direction 53B paragraph 4.2(3) and did not plead reasonable grounds for bringing claims in libel or malicious falsehood against the 1st Defendant. The pleadings failed to set out facts and matters from which serious harm to reputation could be inferred, did not adequately specify which statements were false, and did not sufficiently plead malice. Accordingly, the Particulars of Claim were struck out in their entirety against both Defendants, with liberty to apply to amend within 28 days.

Parties
Claimant: Matthew Johnson; 1st Defendant: Alanna McArdle; 2nd Defendant: XYZ
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / Strike Out Application of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Particulars of Claim struck out against both Defendants, with liberty to apply to amend within 28 days.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Pleadings, Serious Harm Requirement, Practice Direction Compliance
Defamation Tort Law Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Pleadings Serious Harm Requirement Practice Direction Compliance

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Johnson

Claimant

Alanna McArdle

1st Defendant

XYZ

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / Strike Out Application of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Particulars of Claim disclose reasonable grounds for bringing claims in libel and malicious falsehood against the 1st Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Particulars of Claim comply with Practice Direction 53B paragraph 4.2(3) regarding serious harm to reputation
  3. 3 Whether the pleading of falsity and malice in malicious falsehood is sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The Particulars of Claim did not comply with Practice Direction 53B paragraph 4.2(3) and did not plead reasonable grounds for bringing claims in libel or malicious falsehood against the 1st Defendant. The pleadings failed to set out facts and matters from which serious harm to reputation could be inferred, did not adequately specify which statements were false, and did not sufficiently plead malice. Accordingly, the Particulars of Claim were struck out in their entirety against both Defendants, with liberty to apply to amend within 28 days.

Court Disposition

Particulars of Claim struck out against both Defendants, with liberty to apply to amend within 28 days.

Orders

  • Particulars of Claim struck out in their entirety against both Defendants.
  • Claimant granted liberty to apply to amend Particulars of Claim within 28 days.