Morrison v Buckinghamshire County Council & Anor [2011] EWHC 3444 (QB) (20 December 2011)

Morrison v Buckinghamshire County Council & Anor [2011] EWHC 3444 (QB) (20 December 2011)

The court held that the claimant should be permitted to amend her Reply to plead that the defence of qualified privilege is not available to a public authority unless the publication was necessary and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR, following Clift v Slough BC. The proposed amendments raised a real issue as to whether the defendants' conduct was compatible with the claimant's Article 8 rights. The defendants' application for summary judgment was refused as the issues of malice and proportionality required determination at trial.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3444
Parties
Claimant: Janet Morrison; First Defendant: Buckinghamshire County Council; Second Defendant: Steve Edgar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Applications: Claimant's Application for Permission to Amend Reply; Defendants' Cross Application for Summary Judgment or Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claimant's application to amend Reply allowed; Defendants' application for summary judgment refused.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Article 8 ECHR (right to Reputation), Proportionality, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings
Defamation Human Rights Public Law Qualified Privilege Malice Article 8 ECHR (right to Reputation) Proportionality Summary Judgment +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 2 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet Morrison

Claimant

Buckinghamshire County Council

First Defendant

Steve Edgar

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Applications: Claimant's Application for Permission to Amend Reply; Defendants' Cross Application for Summary Judgment or Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of qualified privilege is available to a public authority in defamation where Article 8 ECHR rights are engaged and proportionality is in question
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend her Reply to plead proportionality and Article 8 arguments following Clift v Slough BC
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the claim or on the issue of malice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimant should be permitted to amend her Reply to plead that the defence of qualified privilege is not available to a public authority unless the publication was necessary and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR, following Clift v Slough BC. The proposed amendments raised a real issue as to whether the defendants' conduct was compatible with the claimant's Article 8 rights. The defendants' application for summary judgment was refused as the issues of malice and proportionality required determination at trial.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to amend Reply allowed; Defendants' application for summary judgment refused.

Orders

  • Claimant granted permission to amend Reply to plead proportionality and Article 8 arguments.
  • Defendants' application for summary judgment or for preliminary issues dismissed.