Khader v Aziz & Anor

Khader v Aziz & Anor

The claims are struck out because the defence of qualified privilege is unanswerable on the facts pleaded, there is no proper pleading or evidence of malice, the particulars of claim are defective, the claims are an abuse of process for lack of real and substantial tort, and the second action is statute-barred. The applications for permission to amend and for summary judgment are rejected as the proposed amendments do not cure the defects and are unsupported by evidence.

Parties
Claimant: Leila Emile Khader; First Defendant (first Action): Mariam Aziz; Second Defendant (first Action): Matthew Dowd; First Defendant (second Action): Davenport Lyons; Second Defendant (second Action): Mark Bateman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Injurious Falsehood / Application for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Permission to Amend, and Summary Judgment by Claimant
Outcome
Claims struck out; applications for permission to amend and for summary judgment rejected.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Limitation Periods, Summary Judgment, Pleading Requirements, Abuse of Process, Conspiracy
Defamation Injurious Falsehood Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Malice Limitation Periods Summary Judgment Pleading Requirements +2 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leila Emile Khader

Claimant

Mariam Aziz

First Defendant (first Action)

Matthew Dowd

Second Defendant (first Action)

Davenport Lyons

First Defendant (second Action)

Mark Bateman

Second Defendant (second Action)

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Injurious Falsehood / Application for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Permission to Amend, and Summary Judgment by Claimant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims for defamation and injurious falsehood should be struck out for lack of reasonable grounds, failure to plead malice, or as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege is unanswerable on the facts pleaded
  3. 3 Whether the claims are statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are struck out because the defence of qualified privilege is unanswerable on the facts pleaded, there is no proper pleading or evidence of malice, the particulars of claim are defective, the claims are an abuse of process for lack of real and substantial tort, and the second action is statute-barred. The applications for permission to amend and for summary judgment are rejected as the proposed amendments do not cure the defects and are unsupported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out; applications for permission to amend and for summary judgment rejected.

Orders

  • Claims in the first action struck out.
  • Claimant's applications for permission to amend and for summary judgment rejected.