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 fails because the words alleged only 'reasonable grounds to suspect' a criminal offence, which does not meet the exception for actionable slander without proof of special damage. The communication was protected by qualified privilege, and malice was not demonstrated.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3270 (QB)
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) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Slander, Libel, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Special Damage
Defamation Media Law Tort Slander Libel Qualified Privilege Malice Special Damage

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) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant published actionable slander to Ms Waller
  2. 2 Whether the email of 17 October was actionable libel
  3. 3 Whether the communication was protected by qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The claim in slander fails because the words alleged only 'reasonable grounds to suspect' a criminal offence, which does not meet the exception for actionable slander without proof of special damage. The communication was protected by qualified privilege, and malice was not demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed