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 clearly applied, malice was not properly pleaded or evidenced, the pleadings were defective, the claims were an abuse of process due to minimal publication, and the second action was statute-barred. The applications to amend and for summary judgment were refused as the proposed amendments did not cure the defects or provide a real prospect of success.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2027 (QB)
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) / Applications for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Permission to Amend, and Summary Judgment by Claimant
Outcome
Claims struck out; applications for permission to amend and for summary judgment refused.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Limitation, Abuse of Process, Pleading Requirements, Conspiracy
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Malice Limitation Abuse of Process Pleading Requirements +1 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) / Applications for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Permission to Amend, and Summary Judgment by Claimant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims for defamation and injurious falsehood should be struck out for lack of reasonable prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies to the alleged publications
  3. 3 Whether malice is sufficiently pleaded or evidenced to defeat qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were struck out because the defence of qualified privilege clearly applied, malice was not properly pleaded or evidenced, the pleadings were defective, the claims were an abuse of process due to minimal publication, and the second action was statute-barred. The applications to amend and for summary judgment were refused as the proposed amendments did not cure the defects or provide a real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claims in the first action struck out.
  • Claimant's applications for permission to amend and for summary judgment refused.