IS PRIME LTD v MOHAMMED ADIL SIDDIQUI & Anor

IS PRIME LTD v MOHAMMED ADIL SIDDIQUI & Anor

The claimant failed to plead any specific or sufficiently particularised loss as required for a malicious falsehood claim at common law based on special damages. The absence of such particulars is a fundamental defect, and the claim cannot proceed on this basis. The claimant must be confined to its statutory claim under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: IS Prime Ltd; Defendant / Applicant: Mohammed Adil Siddiqui; Defendant / Applicant: TF Global Markets (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (malicious Falsehood) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim for Special Damages
Outcome
Claim for special damages in malicious falsehood struck out; claimant confined to statutory claim under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952.
Legal Topics
Malicious Falsehood, Special Damages, Pleading Requirements, Defamation Act 1952
Tort Law Media Law Malicious Falsehood Special Damages Pleading Requirements Defamation Act 1952

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IS Prime Ltd

Claimant / Respondent

Mohammed Adil Siddiqui

Defendant / Applicant

TF Global Markets (UK) Ltd

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (malicious Falsehood) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim for Special Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim disclose reasonable grounds for a malicious falsehood claim at common law based on special damages
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has sufficiently pleaded special damage as required by law

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to plead any specific or sufficiently particularised loss as required for a malicious falsehood claim at common law based on special damages. The absence of such particulars is a fundamental defect, and the claim cannot proceed on this basis. The claimant must be confined to its statutory claim under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952.

Court Disposition

Claim for special damages in malicious falsehood struck out; claimant confined to statutory claim under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952.

Orders

  • Passages of the claim specified in the defendants’ notice of application are struck out.
  • If the claimant wishes to amend its pleadings in support of the section 3 claim, it must serve an amended statement of case.