Freer v Zeb & Ors [2008] EWHC 212 (QB) (14 February 2008)

Freer v Zeb & Ors [2008] EWHC 212 (QB) (14 February 2008)

The claim was struck out because the Claimant had no real prospect of proving the First Defendant was vicariously liable, failed to plead or evidence publication properly, and the action was an abuse of process given its speculative, duplicative, and oppressive nature.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 212 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Lee Anthony Freer; First Defendant: Mr Aurang Zeb; Second Defendant: Person unknown aka 'Boo'; Third Defendant: Claire Marie McBride
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (slander) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out as an abuse of process and for having no real prospect of success.
Legal Topics
Slander, Vicarious Liability, Abuse of Process, Summary Judgment, Pleading Requirements, Publication in Defamation
Defamation Civil Procedure Slander Vicarious Liability Abuse of Process Summary Judgment Pleading Requirements Publication in Defamation

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Anthony Freer

Claimant

Mr Aurang Zeb

First Defendant

Person unknown aka 'Boo'

Second Defendant

Claire Marie McBride

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (slander) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant is vicariously liable for alleged slanders by the Second and Third Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses a reasonable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the claim is an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because the Claimant had no real prospect of proving the First Defendant was vicariously liable, failed to plead or evidence publication properly, and the action was an abuse of process given its speculative, duplicative, and oppressive nature.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process and for having no real prospect of success.

Orders

  • Claim against all Defendants struck out.
  • Court's order to record that the claim is totally without merit.