Hughes v Risbridger & Anor

Hughes v Risbridger & Anor

The application for summary judgment is rejected because it cannot be said that a fact-finding tribunal would be perverse to conclude that Mr Risbridger made an allegation about the Claimant which he knew to be false; the issue of malice is not so speculative or lacking in evidence as to be struck out at this stage.

Parties
Claimant: Peter Hughes; First Defendant: William Risbridger (sued as 'Bill Risbridger'); Second Defendant: British Airways PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Summary Judgment Application by Defendants
Outcome
Defendants' application for summary judgment refused; Claimant's applications to amend pleadings refused.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Summary Judgment, Pleading Standards
Defamation Employment Law Qualified Privilege Malice Summary Judgment Pleading Standards

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Hughes

Claimant

William Risbridger (sued as 'Bill Risbridger')

First Defendant

British Airways PLC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Summary Judgment Application by Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for libel is bound to fail due to inability to plead malice with a realistic prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege is vitiated by malice
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant should be permitted to amend pleadings to add further publishees

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary judgment is rejected because it cannot be said that a fact-finding tribunal would be perverse to conclude that Mr Risbridger made an allegation about the Claimant which he knew to be false; the issue of malice is not so speculative or lacking in evidence as to be struck out at this stage.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for summary judgment refused; Claimant's applications to amend pleadings refused.

Orders

  • Defendants' application for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • Claimant's applications to amend the particulars of claim and reply are refused.