Creative Resins International Ltd. v Glasslam Europe Ltd. & Ors [2005] EWHC 777 (QB) (03 May 2005)

Creative Resins International Ltd. v Glasslam Europe Ltd. & Ors [2005] EWHC 777 (QB) (03 May 2005)

The court held that the claim against the Second Defendant (solicitors) could not be summarily dismissed at this stage because there remain factual and legal issues regarding the scope of qualified privilege, the relevance of the allegations, and potential malice. The possibility of further disclosure, including waiver of privilege by the First Defendant, means the court is not in as good a position as the trial court to resolve these issues. The Claimant has a real prospect of success against the Second Defendant, and the application for summary judgment or strike out is dismissed.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 777 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Creative Resins International Limited; First Defendant: Glasslam Europe Limited; Second Defendant: Donne Mileham & Haddock (a firm); Third Defendant: Stephen Howes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Application for Summary Judgment/strike Out Under CPR 24 by Second Defendant
Outcome
Application for summary judgment/strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Summary Judgment, Malice, Solicitor's Liability, Strike Out Applications
Defamation Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Summary Judgment Malice Solicitor's Liability Strike Out Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Creative Resins International Limited

Claimant

Glasslam Europe Limited

First Defendant

Donne Mileham & Haddock (a firm)

Second Defendant

Stephen Howes

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Application for Summary Judgment/strike Out Under CPR 24 by Second Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the Second Defendant (solicitors) should be summarily dismissed or struck out under CPR 24
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege protects the Second Defendant as solicitors acting on instructions
  3. 3 Whether the allegations in the letter were outside the scope of qualified privilege due to irrelevance or malice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claim against the Second Defendant (solicitors) could not be summarily dismissed at this stage because there remain factual and legal issues regarding the scope of qualified privilege, the relevance of the allegations, and potential malice. The possibility of further disclosure, including waiver of privilege by the First Defendant, means the court is not in as good a position as the trial court to resolve these issues. The Claimant has a real prospect of success against the Second Defendant, and the application for summary judgment or strike out is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment/strike out dismissed

Orders

  • The application by the Second Defendant for summary judgment or to strike out the claim is dismissed.