Clift v Slough Borough Council & Anor

Clift v Slough Borough Council & Anor

The court held that publication of the email and Register to certain Council employees was on an occasion of qualified privilege, being necessary and proportionate for the protection of staff. However, publication to other employees, community wardens, trade union officials, and partner organisations was not privileged as it was excessive and not justified under Article 8 ECHR. The jury rejected the defences of justification and malice, finding for the claimant.

Parties
Claimant: Jane Clift; First Defendant: Slough Borough Council; Second Defendant: Patrick Kelleher
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Libel / Judgment After Jury Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Article 8 ECHR, Data Protection Act 1998, Libel, Malice, Justification
Defamation Human Rights Data Protection Qualified Privilege Article 8 ECHR Data Protection Act 1998 Libel Malice +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Clift

Claimant

Slough Borough Council

First Defendant

Patrick Kelleher

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Judgment After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication of the email and Register entry was on an occasion of qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether the Council's actions were necessary and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the publications were justified or malicious

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that publication of the email and Register to certain Council employees was on an occasion of qualified privilege, being necessary and proportionate for the protection of staff. However, publication to other employees, community wardens, trade union officials, and partner organisations was not privileged as it was excessive and not justified under Article 8 ECHR. The jury rejected the defences of justification and malice, finding for the claimant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Damages of £12,000 awarded to Ms Clift
  • No finding of malice against Mr Kelleher