Hughes v Risbridger & Anor [2009] EWHC 3244 (QB) (09 December 2009)

Hughes v Risbridger & Anor [2009] EWHC 3244 (QB) (09 December 2009)

The Claimant's plea of malice is not so weak that it should be struck out at this stage; a fact-finding tribunal could rationally infer malice from the facts, and it is not appropriate to grant summary judgment. The proposed amendments to add further publishees are too vague and unsupported to be permitted.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3244
Parties
Claimant: Peter Hughes; First Defendant: William Risbridger (sued as 'Bill Risbridger'); Second Defendant: British Airways Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / Application for Summary Judgment by Defendants and Application to Amend Pleadings by Claimant
Outcome
Defendants' application for summary judgment refused; Claimant's applications to amend pleadings refused.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Summary Judgment, Pleading Amendments
Defamation Employment Law Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Malice Summary Judgment Pleading Amendments

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Hughes

Claimant

William Risbridger (sued as 'Bill Risbridger')

First Defendant

British Airways Plc

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / Application for Summary Judgment by Defendants and Application to Amend Pleadings by Claimant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for libel is bound to fail due to lack of a viable plea of malice
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege is vitiated by malice
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant should be permitted to amend pleadings to add further publishees

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's plea of malice is not so weak that it should be struck out at this stage; a fact-finding tribunal could rationally infer malice from the facts, and it is not appropriate to grant summary judgment. The proposed amendments to add further publishees are too vague and unsupported to be permitted.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for summary judgment refused; Claimant's applications to amend pleadings refused.

Orders

  • Defendants' application for summary judgment dismissed.
  • Claimant's applications to amend particulars of claim and reply refused.