Pannu v Carter & Anor

Pannu v Carter & Anor

The claim in slander failed because the words alleged did not impute guilt but only reasonable grounds to suspect a criminal offence, which is insufficient to fall within the exception to the requirement for special damage. The communication was protected by qualified privilege and there was no evidence of malice.

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) and Breach of Confidence / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Slander, Libel, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Breach of Confidence
Defamation Tort Media 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) and Breach of Confidence / Judgment After Trial

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 was defamatory
  3. 3 Whether the words spoken were protected by qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The claim in slander failed because the words alleged did not impute guilt but only reasonable grounds to suspect a criminal offence, which is insufficient to fall within the exception to the requirement for special damage. The communication was protected by qualified privilege and there was no evidence of malice.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed