Yavuz v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 1971 (QB) (22 July 2019)

Yavuz v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 1971 (QB) (22 July 2019)

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the words complained of were spoken or that her arm was grabbed. Even if the words had been spoken, publication was to a small number of unknown persons, with no evidence of serious harm to reputation as required by s.1 Defamation Act 2013. The claims for slander and trespass to the person therefore fail.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1971 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Syed Cemile Yavuz; First Defendant: Tesco Stores Limited; Second Defendant: Tesco PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (defamation, Trespass to Person) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for the Defendants.
Legal Topics
Slander, Trespass to the Person, Serious Harm Threshold, Defamation Act 2013, Damages Assessment
Tort Defamation Personal Injury Slander Trespass to the Person Serious Harm Threshold Defamation Act 2013 Damages Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Syed Cemile Yavuz

Claimant

Tesco Stores Limited

First Defendant

Tesco PLC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (defamation, Trespass to Person) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Mr Abdullah (Tesco employee) say the words complained of (accusing the claimant of theft)?
  2. 2 If so, did they cause serious harm to the reputation of Ms Yavuz under s.1 Defamation Act 2013?
  3. 3 Did Mr Abdullah grab Ms Yavuz's arm (trespass to the person)?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the words complained of were spoken or that her arm was grabbed. Even if the words had been spoken, publication was to a small number of unknown persons, with no evidence of serious harm to reputation as required by s.1 Defamation Act 2013. The claims for slander and trespass to the person therefore fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for the Defendants.