Soriano v Societe D'exploitation De L'hebdomadaire Le Point SA & Anor [2022] EWHC 1763 (QB) (08 July 2022)

Soriano v Societe D'exploitation De L'hebdomadaire Le Point SA & Anor [2022] EWHC 1763 (QB) (08 July 2022)

The claimant's pleadings on serious harm are defective and inconsistent with the prior ruling on meaning, but these defects are remediable. The factual basis for serious harm, though not strongly documented, is not fanciful and is capable of being established at trial through further evidence and oral testimony. The high threshold for strike-out or summary judgment is not met; the claim should not be terminated at this stage, but the claimant must amend his pleadings to cure the defects.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1763
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Walter Tzvi Soriano; First Defendant/applicant: Societe d'Exploitation de l'Hebdomadaire Le Point SA; Second Defendant/applicant: Marc Leplongeon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Libel/defamation / Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application dismissed subject to amendment of pleadings
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Requirement, Strike Out of Pleadings, Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction in Defamation, Causation of Reputational Harm
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Serious Harm Requirement Strike Out of Pleadings Summary Judgment Jurisdiction in Defamation Causation of Reputational Harm

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Tzvi Soriano

Claimant/respondent

Societe d'Exploitation de l'Hebdomadaire Le Point SA

First Defendant/applicant

Marc Leplongeon

Second Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Libel/defamation / Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleadings and evidence on 'serious harm' satisfy the requirements of section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted for lack of reasonable grounds or real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether defects in the pleadings are remediable

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's pleadings on serious harm are defective and inconsistent with the prior ruling on meaning, but these defects are remediable. The factual basis for serious harm, though not strongly documented, is not fanciful and is capable of being established at trial through further evidence and oral testimony. The high threshold for strike-out or summary judgment is not met; the claim should not be terminated at this stage, but the claimant must amend his pleadings to cure the defects.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed subject to amendment of pleadings

Orders

  • Claimant to be given opportunity to amend Particulars of Claim to remedy inconsistency with prior ruling and improve clarity and particularity on causation of serious harm in the UK.
  • Defendants' application to strike out or for summary judgment is otherwise dismissed.