Smith v Poulton & Ors [2024] EWHC 3115 (KB) (05 December 2024)

Smith v Poulton & Ors [2024] EWHC 3115 (KB) (05 December 2024)

The Deputy Master was entitled, in the exercise of discretion, to refuse to strike out the challenged particulars of harassment. The pleaded case was not hopeless or bound to fail; legal issues regarding privilege and journalistic material require factual determination at trial. The course of conduct must be assessed as a whole, and striking out would risk obstructing the just disposal of proceedings. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3115 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/third Party: Samuel Collingwood Smith; Respondent/defendant: Sonia Poulton; Respondent/claimant: John Hemming; Respondent/fourth Party: Darren Laverty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Interlocutory, Appeal From Order Refusing Strike Out
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Absolute Privilege, Harassment Claims, Freedom of Expression, Case Management, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Harassment Defamation Media Law Strike Out Applications Absolute Privilege Harassment Claims Freedom of Expression +2 more

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 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Collingwood Smith

Appellant/third Party

Sonia Poulton

Respondent/defendant

John Hemming

Respondent/claimant

Darren Laverty

Respondent/fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Interlocutory, Appeal From Order Refusing Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Deputy Master erred in refusing to strike out particulars of harassment claim as otiose, privileged, or protected journalistic material
  2. 2 Whether the challenged particulars disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing the claim or were abusive
  3. 3 Whether absolute privilege applies to harassment claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master was entitled, in the exercise of discretion, to refuse to strike out the challenged particulars of harassment. The pleaded case was not hopeless or bound to fail; legal issues regarding privilege and journalistic material require factual determination at trial. The course of conduct must be assessed as a whole, and striking out would risk obstructing the just disposal of proceedings. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Ms Poulton to clarify reliance on Category 1 particulars pursuant to CPR Rule 18
  • No strike out of challenged particulars