Barry v Butler & Anor [2015] EWHC 447 (QB) (25 February 2015)

Barry v Butler & Anor [2015] EWHC 447 (QB) (25 February 2015)

The plea of malice is struck out as it lacks specific factual allegations and is based on formulaic assertions insufficient to raise a probability of malice. Judgment is not entered for the defendants on the 18 January 2012 email as privilege is disputed and summary judgment requirements are not met. An unless order is made for the claimant to provide proper disclosure in support of the special damages claim, failing which that claim will be struck out. The trial is confined to the issues of meaning and qualified privilege due to late and incomplete disclosure and fairness to the defendants.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 447 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Christopher Barry; First Defendant: Alison Butler; Second Defendant: Rapidguard Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Pre Trial Review and Hearing of Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Plea of malice struck out; unless order for disclosure made; trial confined to meaning and qualified privilege; no summary judgment granted; permission to disclose witness statements/documents refused.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Disclosure, Special Damages, Preliminary Issues, Case Management
Defamation Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Malice Disclosure Special Damages Preliminary Issues Case Management

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Barry

Claimant

Alison Butler

First Defendant

Rapidguard Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Pre Trial Review and Hearing of Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plea of malice should be struck out for lack of proper particularisation
  2. 2 Whether judgment should be entered for the defendants in respect of the 18 January 2012 email
  3. 3 Whether the claimant should be required to provide further disclosure in support of his special damages claim, failing which the claim should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The plea of malice is struck out as it lacks specific factual allegations and is based on formulaic assertions insufficient to raise a probability of malice. Judgment is not entered for the defendants on the 18 January 2012 email as privilege is disputed and summary judgment requirements are not met. An unless order is made for the claimant to provide proper disclosure in support of the special damages claim, failing which that claim will be struck out. The trial is confined to the issues of meaning and qualified privilege due to late and incomplete disclosure and fairness to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Plea of malice struck out; unless order for disclosure made; trial confined to meaning and qualified privilege; no summary judgment granted; permission to disclose witness statements/documents refused.

Orders

  • Plea of malice struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)
  • Unless claimant provides disclosure of documents supporting special damages claim by 27 February 2015, that claim will be struck out