Thompson v James & Anor

Thompson v James & Anor

The matters relied on by the Claimant, even if proved, could not support a finding that the First Defendant acted dishonestly or with a dominant improper motive. The draft plea of malice does not disclose a viable case and must be struck out.

Parties
Claimant: Jacqueline Thompson; First Defendant and Part 20 Claimant: Mark James; Second Defendant: Carmarthenshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application During Trial
Outcome
Application refused; plea of malice struck out
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings
Defamation Media Law Qualified Privilege Malice Pleadings Amendment of Pleadings

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Thompson

Claimant

Mark James

First Defendant and Part 20 Claimant

Carmarthenshire County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant should be granted permission to amend her Reply to include a plea of malice in response to the Defendants’ defence of qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether the draft plea of malice discloses a viable case to go forward

Ratio Decidendi

The matters relied on by the Claimant, even if proved, could not support a finding that the First Defendant acted dishonestly or with a dominant improper motive. The draft plea of malice does not disclose a viable case and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application refused; plea of malice struck out

Orders

  • Permission to amend the Reply to include a plea of malice is refused
  • The plea of malice is struck out in its entirety