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 has no real prospect of establishing serious harm to reputation as required by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, given the limited publication to two individuals, the lack of evidence of wider publication or ongoing impact, and the relatively minor nature of the allegations. Summary judgment is granted for the defendants. Alternatively, the claim would be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process under the Jameel jurisdiction.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1688 (QB)
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 for defendants
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Threshold, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Jameel Jurisdiction, Qualified Privilege, Publication, Special Damages
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Serious Harm Threshold Summary Judgment Strike Out Jameel Jurisdiction Qualified Privilege +2 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 4 Authorities cited 18 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 claimant has a real prospect of establishing serious harm to reputation under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process (Jameel jurisdiction)
  3. 3 Whether the publications were made to more than two individuals and whether wider publication or inference of serious harm is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The claim has no real prospect of establishing serious harm to reputation as required by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, given the limited publication to two individuals, the lack of evidence of wider publication or ongoing impact, and the relatively minor nature of the allegations. Summary judgment is granted for the defendants. Alternatively, the claim would be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process under the Jameel jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; summary judgment for defendants

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted in favour of the defendants on the whole claim
  • Claim struck out under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim (in the alternative)