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 judicial determination of meaning, but these defects are remediable by amendment. The factual basis for serious harm, though currently scant and lacking in documentary support, is not so groundless or fanciful as to justify striking out or summary judgment. The claim should not be terminated at this stage; the claimant is given leave to amend the pleadings to cure the defects and clarify the case on serious harm in the UK.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1763 (QB)
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 / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment (terminating Ruling)
Outcome
Application for strike-out and summary judgment refused; claimant given leave to amend pleadings.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Requirement, Strike Out of Pleadings, Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction in Defamation, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Causation of Reputational Harm
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Serious Harm Requirement Strike Out of Pleadings Summary Judgment Jurisdiction in Defamation Meaning of Defamatory Statements +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 14 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 / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment (terminating Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleadings and evidence disclose a reasonable basis for serious harm under s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted for lack of real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings are inconsistent with a prior judicial determination of meaning and thus an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's pleadings on serious harm are defective and inconsistent with the prior judicial determination of meaning, but these defects are remediable by amendment. The factual basis for serious harm, though currently scant and lacking in documentary support, is not so groundless or fanciful as to justify striking out or summary judgment. The claim should not be terminated at this stage; the claimant is given leave to amend the pleadings to cure the defects and clarify the case on serious harm in the UK.

Court Disposition

Application for strike-out and summary judgment refused; claimant given leave to amend pleadings.

Orders

  • Claimant to amend Particulars of Claim to remedy inconsistency with prior ruling and clarify serious harm case.
  • Claim proceeds to trial if necessary after amendment.