Barry v Butler & Anor

Barry v Butler & Anor

The plea of malice was struck out as it was not properly particularised with facts more consistent with malice than its absence. Judgment could not be entered for the defendants on the second email as the defence of privilege was not admitted and procedural requirements for summary judgment were not met. The claimant was ordered to provide proper disclosure of documents supporting the special damages claim by a set deadline, failing which the claim would be struck out. The trial was confined to the issues of meaning and qualified privilege due to late and incomplete disclosure and to avoid unfairness to the defendants.

Parties
Claimant: Christopher Barry; First Defendant: Alison Butler; Second Defendant: Rapidguard Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Libel / Pre Trial Review and Hearing of Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Plea of malice struck out; unless order for disclosure of special damages documents; trial confined to meaning and qualified privilege; permission to disclose witness statements/documents to third parties refused.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Disclosure, Striking Out Pleadings, Preliminary Issues, Special Damages
Defamation Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Malice Disclosure Striking Out Pleadings Preliminary Issues Special Damages

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Barry

Claimant

Alison Butler

First Defendant

Rapidguard Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Pre Trial Review and Hearing of Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plea of malice should be struck out for lack of proper particularisation
  2. 2 Whether judgment should be entered for the defendants on the second email on grounds of qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's special damages claim should be struck out for failure to disclose supporting documents

Ratio Decidendi

The plea of malice was struck out as it was not properly particularised with facts more consistent with malice than its absence. Judgment could not be entered for the defendants on the second email as the defence of privilege was not admitted and procedural requirements for summary judgment were not met. The claimant was ordered to provide proper disclosure of documents supporting the special damages claim by a set deadline, failing which the claim would be struck out. The trial was confined to the issues of meaning and qualified privilege due to late and incomplete disclosure and to avoid unfairness to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Plea of malice struck out; unless order for disclosure of special damages documents; trial confined to meaning and qualified privilege; permission to disclose witness statements/documents to third parties refused.

Orders

  • Plea of malice in the Reply struck out under CPR 3.4(2) for lack of proper particularisation.
  • Claimant to provide disclosure of all documents relating to special damages by 27 February 2015, failing which the special damages claim will be struck out with costs.