Wakefield (t/a Wills Probate and Trusts of Weybridge) v Ford & Anor [2009] EWHC 122 (QB) (29 January 2009)

Wakefield (t/a Wills Probate and Trusts of Weybridge) v Ford & Anor [2009] EWHC 122 (QB) (29 January 2009)

The claim was untenable after the defence of qualified privilege was upheld and no evidence of malice existed. The Claimant's persistence in the litigation and in the plea of malice, despite clear warnings and reasonable offers to settle, was unreasonable to a high degree and justified an order for indemnity costs throughout.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 122 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Jeffrey Wakefield (trading as 'Wills Probate and Trusts of Weybridge'); First Defendant: Ian Roger Ford; Second Defendant: Caporn Campbell (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Post Hearing, Costs Determination Following Anticipated Discontinuance
Outcome
Claim dismissed/discontinued; costs awarded to Defendants on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Justification, Indemnity Costs, Settlement Offers, Discontinuance
Defamation Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Malice Justification Indemnity Costs Settlement Offers Discontinuance

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

Parties

Jeffrey Wakefield (trading as 'Wills Probate and Trusts of Weybridge')

Claimant

Ian Roger Ford

First Defendant

Caporn Campbell (A Firm)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Post Hearing, Costs Determination Following Anticipated Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of were defamatory and actionable
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applied
  3. 3 Whether malice could be established to defeat qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was untenable after the defence of qualified privilege was upheld and no evidence of malice existed. The Claimant's persistence in the litigation and in the plea of malice, despite clear warnings and reasonable offers to settle, was unreasonable to a high degree and justified an order for indemnity costs throughout.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed/discontinued; costs awarded to Defendants on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Defendants' costs on the indemnity basis throughout.
  • Claimant to pay £45,000 on account of costs by 13 March 2009.