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 proposed amendments to the Reply, raising proportionality and Article 8 arguments, were not futile and had a real prospect of success in light of Clift v Slough BC. The law requires public authorities to justify publication of damaging information as necessary and proportionate under Article 8. The application to amend was allowed. The defendants' application for summary judgment on malice was refused, as the malice plea was not bound to fail. The issues of proportionality and malice could be tried as preliminary issues if appropriate.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3444 (QB)
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; Issues of proportionality and malice may be tried as preliminary issues.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings
Defamation Human Rights Public Law Qualified Privilege Malice Article 8 ECHR 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 3 Authorities cited 17 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 a public authority can rely on qualified privilege in defamation if publication is not compatible with Article 8 ECHR rights to reputation; Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend her Reply to plead proportionality and Article 8 arguments; Whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of malice or the whole claim; Whether issues of malice and proportionality should be tried as preliminary issues.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the proposed amendments to the Reply, raising proportionality and Article 8 arguments, were not futile and had a real prospect of success in light of Clift v Slough BC. The law requires public authorities to justify publication of damaging information as necessary and proportionate under Article 8. The application to amend was allowed. The defendants' application for summary judgment on malice was refused, as the malice plea was not bound to fail. The issues of proportionality and malice could be tried as preliminary issues if appropriate.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to amend Reply allowed; Defendants' application for summary judgment refused; Issues of proportionality and malice may be tried as preliminary issues.

Orders

  • Permission granted to claimant to amend Reply as proposed.
  • Defendants' application for summary judgment on malice and the whole claim refused.