Thompson v James & Anor [2013] EWHC 585 (QB) (15 March 2013)

Thompson v James & Anor [2013] EWHC 585 (QB) (15 March 2013)

The claimant's draft plea of malice, even if all facts pleaded were proved, could not support a finding that the First Defendant acted dishonestly or with a dominant improper motive. The matters pleaded were not so clearly irrelevant or false as to justify an inference of malice. Therefore, permission to amend was refused and the plea of malice was struck out.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 585 (QB)
Parties
Claimant and Part 20 Defendant: Jacqueline Thompson; First Defendant and Part 20 Claimant: Mark James; Second Defendant: Carmarthenshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Application During Trial
Outcome
Application refused; plea of malice struck out
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Pleading Standards, Amendment of Pleadings
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Malice Pleading Standards Amendment of Pleadings

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Thompson

Claimant and Part 20 Defendant

Mark James

First Defendant and Part 20 Claimant

Carmarthenshire County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted permission to amend her Reply to plead malice in response to the defence of qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether the draft plea of malice discloses a case fit to go forward

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's draft plea of malice, even if all facts pleaded were proved, could not support a finding that the First Defendant acted dishonestly or with a dominant improper motive. The matters pleaded were not so clearly irrelevant or false as to justify an inference of malice. Therefore, permission to amend was refused and the plea of malice was struck out.

Court Disposition

Application refused; plea of malice struck out

Orders

  • Permission to amend the Reply to plead malice refused
  • Plea of malice struck out in its entirety