Spencer v Sillitoe & Anor [2003] EWHC 1651 (QB) (09 July 2003)

Spencer v Sillitoe & Anor [2003] EWHC 1651 (QB) (09 July 2003)

The court held that the background allegations relating to the Pathway project and personal attacks on individuals were irrelevant, prolix, and oppressive, and should be struck out from both the defamation and contract claims. The Friend principle could not be definitively applied at this stage to bar the defamation claims relating to internal disciplinary proceedings, as factual disputes remained about the commencement and conduct of those proceedings. Disclosure should be confined to documents relevant to pleaded issues only.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1651
Parties
Claimant: Mark Warren Gardner Spencer; First Defendant: David Enoch Sillitoe; Second Defendant: Fujitsu Services Limited (formerly ICL)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application to strike out granted in part; irrelevant and prolix material struck out; application to strike out claims based on Friend principle denied at this stage; disclosure to be confined to relevant documents.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Pleadings, Qualified Privilege, Justification Defence, Malice, Abuse of Process, Disclosure, Data Protection
Defamation Contract Employment Strike Out Applications Pleadings Qualified Privilege Justification Defence Malice +3 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Warren Gardner Spencer

Claimant

David Enoch Sillitoe

First Defendant

Fujitsu Services Limited (formerly ICL)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the particulars of claim are prolix, irrelevant, embarrassing or vexatious and should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the background of the Pathway project is relevant to the pleaded issues
  3. 3 Whether the Friend principle applies to internal disciplinary proceedings and bars certain defamation claims

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the background allegations relating to the Pathway project and personal attacks on individuals were irrelevant, prolix, and oppressive, and should be struck out from both the defamation and contract claims. The Friend principle could not be definitively applied at this stage to bar the defamation claims relating to internal disciplinary proceedings, as factual disputes remained about the commencement and conduct of those proceedings. Disclosure should be confined to documents relevant to pleaded issues only.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out granted in part; irrelevant and prolix material struck out; application to strike out claims based on Friend principle denied at this stage; disclosure to be confined to relevant documents.

Orders

  • Strike out of all references to the Pathway project and irrelevant personal attacks from particulars of claim in both actions.
  • Mr Spencer to serve a new, reduced list of relevant documents for disclosure.