WALTER TZVI SORIANO v SOCIETE D’EXPLOITATION DE L’HEBDOMADAIRE LE POINT SA & Anor

WALTER TZVI SORIANO v SOCIETE D’EXPLOITATION DE L’HEBDOMADAIRE LE POINT SA & Anor

The claimant's pleadings are defective due to inconsistency with the preliminary ruling on meaning, but these defects are remediable. The factual basis for serious harm is not fanciful and carries some degree of conviction, supported by witness evidence and prospects for further evidence. The claim should not be struck out or summarily dismissed at this stage; the claimant should be allowed to amend pleadings and proceed to trial.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Walter Tzvi Soriano; Defendant/applicant: Societe d’Exploitation de l’Hebdomadaire Le Point SA; Defendant/applicant: Marc Leplongeon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment (terminating Ruling)
Outcome
Application for strike-out and summary judgment dismissed; claimant granted leave to amend pleadings.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Requirement, Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction, Causation, Pleadings, Abuse of Process
Defamation Civil Procedure Serious Harm Requirement Strike Out Summary Judgment Jurisdiction Causation Pleadings +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 5 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

Defendant/applicant

Marc Leplongeon

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment (terminating Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleadings and evidence establish a factual basis for serious harm under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted due to defective pleadings or lack of real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings are inconsistent with the preliminary ruling on meaning and constitute abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's pleadings are defective due to inconsistency with the preliminary ruling on meaning, but these defects are remediable. The factual basis for serious harm is not fanciful and carries some degree of conviction, supported by witness evidence and prospects for further evidence. The claim should not be struck out or summarily dismissed at this stage; the claimant should be allowed to amend pleadings and proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Application for strike-out and summary judgment dismissed; claimant granted leave to amend pleadings.

Orders

  • Claimant to amend Particulars of Claim to remedy inconsistency with preliminary ruling and improve clarity and particularity on causation of serious harm in the UK.
  • Claim proceeds to trial if necessary.