DAVID HAVILAND v THE ANDREW LOWNIE LITERARY AGENCY LTD & Anor

DAVID HAVILAND v THE ANDREW LOWNIE LITERARY AGENCY LTD & Anor

The claimant has no real prospect of establishing that he has suffered or is likely to suffer serious harm to his reputation as a result of the publications sued upon. The publications were made to only two individuals, there is no evidence of wider publication or ongoing effect, and the nature of the statements does not meet the serious harm threshold under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The claim is therefore dismissed by summary judgment, and would also be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process under the Jameel jurisdiction.

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
Civil Defamation / Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out Application
Outcome
Claim dismissed by summary judgment; alternatively, claim would be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Threshold, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Jameel Jurisdiction, Qualified Privilege
Defamation Media Law 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 16 Party arguments 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

Civil Defamation / 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)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has no real prospect of establishing that he has suffered or is likely to suffer serious harm to his reputation as a result of the publications sued upon. The publications were made to only two individuals, there is no evidence of wider publication or ongoing effect, and the nature of the statements does not meet the serious harm threshold under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The claim is therefore dismissed by summary judgment, and would also be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process under the Jameel jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed by summary judgment; alternatively, claim would be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process.