W v JH & Anor

W v JH & Anor

The applications for summary judgment and for rulings that the words complained of are not capable of bearing the meanings pleaded are dismissed. The court cannot determine summarily that the occasion was one of qualified privilege due to unresolved factual issues regarding the relationship, the circumstances of publication, the effect of assurances given, the Data Protection Act 1998, and the lapse of time. The words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded by the claimant.

Parties
Claimant: W; First Defendant: J H; Second Defendant: A County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Slander / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment and Ruling on Meaning
Outcome
Defendants' applications for summary judgment and for rulings on meaning dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Employee References, Malice, Data Protection Act 1998, Human Rights Act 1998, Rehabilitation of Offenders, Summary Judgment, Meaning of Words
Defamation Employment Law Data Protection Qualified Privilege Employee References Malice Data Protection Act 1998 Human Rights Act 1998 +3 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 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Claimant

J H

First Defendant

A County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Slander / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment and Ruling on Meaning

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the occasion of publication was one of qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings pleaded by the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has a real prospect of defeating the defence of qualified privilege in the absence of malice

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for summary judgment and for rulings that the words complained of are not capable of bearing the meanings pleaded are dismissed. The court cannot determine summarily that the occasion was one of qualified privilege due to unresolved factual issues regarding the relationship, the circumstances of publication, the effect of assurances given, the Data Protection Act 1998, and the lapse of time. The words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded by the claimant.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications for summary judgment and for rulings on meaning dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for summary judgment dismissed
  • Applications for rulings on meaning dismissed