Apsion v Butler [2011] EWHC 844 (QB) (23 February 2011)

Apsion v Butler [2011] EWHC 844 (QB) (23 February 2011)

The claim is time-barred as all relevant publications occurred more than a year before issue and the claimant knew or could have discovered all relevant facts by January 2007; there was no deliberate concealment by the defendant; the statement was made for use in legal and disciplinary proceedings and is protected by absolute privilege; the claim constitutes a collateral attack on disciplinary tribunal decisions and is an abuse of process; there is no real prospect of success and no equitable reason to extend time.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 844
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Gordon Apsion; Respondent/defendant: Rupert Butler
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2011
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (libel/malicious Falsehood) / Defendant's Application for Summary Judgment and Strike Out; Claimant's Application for Disclosure and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; summary judgment for the defendant; claimant's applications refused.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Absolute Privilege, Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Malicious Falsehood, Summary Judgment, Judicial Immunity
Defamation Civil Procedure Professional Discipline Limitation of Actions Absolute Privilege Abuse of Process Collateral Attack Malicious Falsehood +2 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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Apsion

Applicant/claimant

Rupert Butler

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (libel/malicious Falsehood) / Defendant's Application for Summary Judgment and Strike Out; Claimant's Application for Disclosure and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the libel and malicious falsehood claims are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's statement is protected by absolute privilege/immunity from suit
  3. 3 Whether the claim constitutes an abuse of process as a collateral attack on disciplinary tribunal decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is time-barred as all relevant publications occurred more than a year before issue and the claimant knew or could have discovered all relevant facts by January 2007; there was no deliberate concealment by the defendant; the statement was made for use in legal and disciplinary proceedings and is protected by absolute privilege; the claim constitutes a collateral attack on disciplinary tribunal decisions and is an abuse of process; there is no real prospect of success and no equitable reason to extend time.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; summary judgment for the defendant; claimant's applications refused.

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted to the defendant on all grounds.
  • Claimant's applications for disclosure and summary judgment refused.