Pannu v Carter & Anor [2017] EWHC 3270 (QB) (15 December 2017)

Pannu v Carter & Anor [2017] EWHC 3270 (QB) (15 December 2017)

The claim in slander failed because the words spoken did not amount to an actionable slander without proof of special damage, as they only alleged reasonable grounds to suspect a criminal offence, not direct commission. The email was not defamatory. The communication was protected by qualified privilege, and there was no evidence of malice to defeat that privilege.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3270
Parties
Claimant: Mandeep Singh Pannu; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Tracy Carter; Part 20 Defendant: Medway Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation (slander and Libel) / High Court Trial, Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Slander, Libel, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Breach of Confidence
Defamation Media Law Tort Law Slander Libel Qualified Privilege Malice Breach of Confidence

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandeep Singh Pannu

Claimant

Tracy Carter

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Medway Council

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (slander and Libel) / High Court Trial, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant published slanderous words about the Claimant actionable without proof of special damage
  2. 2 Whether the email of 17 October 2012 was defamatory
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's communication was protected by qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The claim in slander failed because the words spoken did not amount to an actionable slander without proof of special damage, as they only alleged reasonable grounds to suspect a criminal offence, not direct commission. The email was not defamatory. The communication was protected by qualified privilege, and there was no evidence of malice to defeat that privilege.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed