Clift v Clarke

Clift v Clarke

The postings complained of are at most trivial, not seriously defamatory, and are unlikely to have caused any damage to the applicant's reputation. The postings are anonymous, brief, and would be read in the context of overwhelmingly positive coverage of the applicant. The claims are weak and highly likely to fail, and the privacy rights and legitimate expectations of the posters and the defendant outweigh the applicant's interests. It would be disproportionate to grant the application for disclosure.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Jane Clift; Defendant/respondent: Martin Clarke
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Norwich Pharmacal Order / Ruling on Application
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Disclosure of Information, Defamation by Anonymous Internet Users, Data Protection, Freedom of Expression
Civil Procedure Defamation Privacy Law Norwich Pharmacal Orders Disclosure of Information Defamation by Anonymous Internet Users Data Protection Freedom of Expression

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Clift

Claimant/applicant

Martin Clarke

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Norwich Pharmacal Order / Ruling on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a Norwich Pharmacal order for disclosure of information to identify anonymous website commenters for the purpose of bringing defamation proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the postings complained of are arguably defamatory and meet the threshold for such an order
  3. 3 Whether the privacy rights and legitimate expectations of the posters and the defendant outweigh the applicant's interests

Ratio Decidendi

The postings complained of are at most trivial, not seriously defamatory, and are unlikely to have caused any damage to the applicant's reputation. The postings are anonymous, brief, and would be read in the context of overwhelmingly positive coverage of the applicant. The claims are weak and highly likely to fail, and the privacy rights and legitimate expectations of the posters and the defendant outweigh the applicant's interests. It would be disproportionate to grant the application for disclosure.

Court Disposition

Application refused