Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1688 (QB) (01 July 2022)

Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1688 (QB) (01 July 2022)

The claim was dismissed because the claimant had no real prospect of establishing serious harm to his reputation from the limited publication of the emails, the nature of the allegations did not meet the statutory threshold, and there was no evidence of wider impact or substantial tort; summary judgment was granted and, alternatively, the claim would have been struck out or dismissed under the Jameel jurisdiction as disproportionate and abusive.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1688
Parties
Claimant/respondent: David Haviland; Defendant/applicant: The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Andrew James Hamilton Lownie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out Application
Outcome
Claim dismissed (summary judgment granted for defendants)
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Threshold, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Jameel Jurisdiction, Qualified Privilege
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Serious Harm Threshold Summary Judgment Strike Out Jameel Jurisdiction Qualified Privilege

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

Parties

David Haviland

Claimant/respondent

The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Andrew James Hamilton Lownie

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publications caused or are likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be summarily dismissed or struck out for lack of reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the claimant had no real prospect of establishing serious harm to his reputation from the limited publication of the emails, the nature of the allegations did not meet the statutory threshold, and there was no evidence of wider impact or substantial tort; summary judgment was granted and, alternatively, the claim would have been struck out or dismissed under the Jameel jurisdiction as disproportionate and abusive.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed (summary judgment granted for defendants)

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted for defendants
  • Claim struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim