MacIntyre v Chief Constable of Kent & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1087 (24 July 2002)

MacIntyre v Chief Constable of Kent & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1087 (24 July 2002)

The judge's refusal to allow amendment to plead similar fact evidence and refusal to order trial of preliminary issues on qualified privilege and malice were both within the wide ambit of his case management discretion and cannot be said to be plainly wrong.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1087
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Donal MacIntyre; Defendant/appellant: Sir John David Phillips (Chief Constable of Kent); Defendant/appellant: Mark Earl Pugash; Defendant/appellant: Michael Edward Costello
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Case Management Directions in Libel Action / Appeal Against Refusal to Allow Amendment to Defence and Refusal to Order Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Case Management, Similar Fact Evidence, Malice, Jury Trial, Amendment of Pleadings
Defamation Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Case Management Similar Fact Evidence Malice Jury Trial Amendment of Pleadings

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donal MacIntyre

Claimant/respondent

Sir John David Phillips (Chief Constable of Kent)

Defendant/appellant

Mark Earl Pugash

Defendant/appellant

Michael Edward Costello

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Case Management Directions in Libel Action / Appeal Against Refusal to Allow Amendment to Defence and Refusal to Order Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to allow amendment to plead similar fact evidence in defence
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to order trial of preliminary issues on qualified privilege and malice

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's refusal to allow amendment to plead similar fact evidence and refusal to order trial of preliminary issues on qualified privilege and malice were both within the wide ambit of his case management discretion and cannot be said to be plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to allow amendment to plead similar fact evidence upheld
  • Refusal to order trial of preliminary issues on qualified privilege and malice upheld