Underhill v Corser & Anor [2010] EWHC 1195 (QB) (27 May 2010)

Underhill v Corser & Anor [2010] EWHC 1195 (QB) (27 May 2010)

The court held that publication of the editorial to the 16 non-members occurred as admitted, but that the First Defendant (Corser) was not legally responsible for the publication because mere knowledge and failure to prevent publication did not amount to authorisation or participation. The court further held that publication to non-members was not on an occasion of qualified privilege because the recipients did not have a sufficient reciprocal interest or duty in the subject matter of the editorial.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1195
Parties
Claimant: Stephen Underhill; First Defendant: Richard Corser; Second Defendant: Timothy Watson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Preliminary Issues Trial Before Judge Alone
Outcome
For the claimant in part; for the defendants in part
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Responsibility for Publication, Libel, Charity Trustees, Conflict of Interest
Defamation Charity Law Qualified Privilege Responsibility for Publication Libel Charity Trustees Conflict of Interest

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Underhill

Claimant

Richard Corser

First Defendant

Timothy Watson

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Preliminary Issues Trial Before Judge Alone

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of the words complained of occurred in the ways pleaded and to what extent
  2. 2 Whether any of the publications to non-members were on occasions of qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant is legally responsible for the publications

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that publication of the editorial to the 16 non-members occurred as admitted, but that the First Defendant (Corser) was not legally responsible for the publication because mere knowledge and failure to prevent publication did not amount to authorisation or participation. The court further held that publication to non-members was not on an occasion of qualified privilege because the recipients did not have a sufficient reciprocal interest or duty in the subject matter of the editorial.

Court Disposition

For the claimant in part; for the defendants in part

Orders

  • Declaration that publication to the 16 non-members occurred as admitted
  • Declaration that the First Defendant is not legally responsible for the publication