Morrison v Buckinghamshire County Council & Anor

Morrison v Buckinghamshire County Council & Anor

The claimant is permitted to amend her Reply to plead that the defence of qualified privilege is not available to a public authority unless publication is necessary and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR, but the plea of malice is struck out as it does not disclose a case more consistent with malice than its absence.

Parties
Claimant: Janet Morrison; First Defendant: Buckinghamshire County Council; Second Defendant: Steve Edgar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Ruling on Applications for Leave to Amend Reply and Summary Judgment on Malice
Outcome
Claimant granted leave to amend Reply; summary judgment granted for defendants on malice.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Article 8 ECHR, Public Authority Liability, Summary Judgment, Leave to Amend Pleadings
Defamation Human Rights Qualified Privilege Malice Article 8 ECHR Public Authority Liability Summary Judgment Leave to Amend 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet Morrison

Claimant

Buckinghamshire County Council

First Defendant

Steve Edgar

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Ruling on Applications for Leave to Amend Reply and Summary Judgment on Malice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether qualified privilege applies to publications by a public authority in light of Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's application to amend her Reply should be allowed
  3. 3 Whether the plea of malice has a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is permitted to amend her Reply to plead that the defence of qualified privilege is not available to a public authority unless publication is necessary and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR, but the plea of malice is struck out as it does not disclose a case more consistent with malice than its absence.

Court Disposition

Claimant granted leave to amend Reply; summary judgment granted for defendants on malice.

Orders

  • Claimant to re-formulate draft amendment to Reply for approval.
  • Issues introduced by amendment to be tried as preliminary issue by judge alone.