Crosbie v Ley [2023] EWHC 2626 (KB) (01 November 2023)

Crosbie v Ley [2023] EWHC 2626 (KB) (01 November 2023)

The court found that the Claimant failed to prove the Defendant was responsible for the online directory entries; there was no evidence of misrepresentation by the Defendant, and the entries were likely the result of a third-party (Google) error. The passing off claim failed. On the counterclaim, the court found the Claimant's statements about the Defendant were defamatory, untrue, and caused serious harm to the Defendant's reputation. The defence of truth was not made out. The Claimant's conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The data protection claim was not determined as it was unnecessary given the findings on defamation and harassment.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2626 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Siobhain Crosbie; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Caroline Ley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (passing Off, Defamation, Harassment, Data Protection) / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim for defamation and harassment upheld.
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Defamation, Harassment, Gdpr/data Protection, Goodwill, Misrepresentation, Serious Harm, Truth Defence
Tort Defamation Intellectual Property Data Protection Passing Off Harassment Gdpr/data Protection Goodwill +3 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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siobhain Crosbie

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Caroline Ley

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil (passing Off, Defamation, Harassment, Data Protection) / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant committed passing off against the Claimant's business
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant defamed the Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant harassed the Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant failed to prove the Defendant was responsible for the online directory entries; there was no evidence of misrepresentation by the Defendant, and the entries were likely the result of a third-party (Google) error. The passing off claim failed. On the counterclaim, the court found the Claimant's statements about the Defendant were defamatory, untrue, and caused serious harm to the Defendant's reputation. The defence of truth was not made out. The Claimant's conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The data protection claim was not determined as it was unnecessary given the findings on defamation and harassment.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim for defamation and harassment upheld.

Orders

  • Claimant's claim for passing off dismissed.
  • Defendant's counterclaim for defamation and harassment succeeds.