Khader v Aziz & Anor [2009] EWHC 2027 (QB) (31 July 2009)

Khader v Aziz & Anor [2009] EWHC 2027 (QB) (31 July 2009)

The claims were struck out because the defence of qualified privilege applied to the only publication arguably made, there was no proper pleading or evidence of malice, the pleadings were defective and non-compliant, the claims in the second action were statute-barred, and the proceedings were an abuse of process as there was no real and substantial tort.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2027
Parties
Claimant: Leila Emile Khader; First Defendant (first Action): Mariam Aziz; Second Defendant (first Action): Matthew Dowd; First Defendant (second Action): Davenport Lyons; Second Defendant (second Action): Mark Bateman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation/injurious Falsehood) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Applications and Application for Permission to Amend
Outcome
Claims struck out; applications for permission to amend and for summary judgment refused.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Limitation Periods, Abuse of Process, Pleading Requirements, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Malice Limitation Periods Abuse of Process Pleading Requirements +2 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leila Emile Khader

Claimant

Mariam Aziz

First Defendant (first Action)

Matthew Dowd

Second Defendant (first Action)

Davenport Lyons

First Defendant (second Action)

Mark Bateman

Second Defendant (second Action)

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation/injurious Falsehood) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Applications and Application for Permission to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies to the alleged publications by the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant has pleaded or can prove malice sufficient to defeat qualified privilege or succeed in injurious falsehood
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings comply with requirements for defamation and injurious falsehood claims

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were struck out because the defence of qualified privilege applied to the only publication arguably made, there was no proper pleading or evidence of malice, the pleadings were defective and non-compliant, the claims in the second action were statute-barred, and the proceedings were an abuse of process as there was no real and substantial tort.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out; applications for permission to amend and for summary judgment refused.

Orders

  • Claims in both actions struck out.
  • Claimant's application for permission to amend refused.