Briggs v Jordan & Ors [2013] EWHC 3205 (QB) (24 October 2013)

Briggs v Jordan & Ors [2013] EWHC 3205 (QB) (24 October 2013)

The words complained of were not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged, did not meet the threshold of seriousness, and the pleaded innuendo was unsupported by evidence. The breach of confidence claim failed as the disclosures did not relate to the provisions or subject matter of the confidentiality agreement, and no loss was shown. The misuse of private information claim, while arguable, should not proceed by amendment but as a fresh action.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3205 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Briggs; First Defendant: Simon Jordan; Second Defendant: Yellow Jersey Press Limited; Third Defendant: Random House Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim; Defendants' Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Application for permission to amend Particulars of Claim dismissed; claim struck out.
Legal Topics
Meaning in Defamation, Threshold of Seriousness, Innuendo Meaning, Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Abuse of Process
Defamation Contract Privacy Meaning in Defamation Threshold of Seriousness Innuendo Meaning Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Briggs

Claimant

Simon Jordan

First Defendant

Yellow Jersey Press Limited

Second Defendant

Random House Group Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim; Defendants' Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing defamatory meanings attributed by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claim in breach of confidence or misuse of private information is arguable
  3. 3 Whether permission to amend the Particulars of Claim should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of were not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged, did not meet the threshold of seriousness, and the pleaded innuendo was unsupported by evidence. The breach of confidence claim failed as the disclosures did not relate to the provisions or subject matter of the confidentiality agreement, and no loss was shown. The misuse of private information claim, while arguable, should not proceed by amendment but as a fresh action.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to amend Particulars of Claim dismissed; claim struck out.

Orders

  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim refused.
  • Claim struck out in its entirety.