Spencer v Sillitoe & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1579 (22 October 2002)

Spencer v Sillitoe & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1579 (22 October 2002)

The appeal was allowed because there was a clear factual dispute as to whether the claimant made the alleged threats, and such a dispute in a defamation case must be determined by a jury, not by summary judgment. The judge erred in placing the burden on the claimant and in failing to recognise that the defendants bore the burden of proving justification.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1579
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mark Warren Gardner Spencer; First Defendant/respondent: David Enoch Sillitoe; Second Defendant/respondent: International Computers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Under CPR 24(2)(a)(2)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Qualified Privilege, Justification Defence, Trial by Jury, Burden of Proof
Defamation Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Qualified Privilege Justification Defence Trial by Jury Burden of Proof

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Warren Gardner Spencer

Claimant/appellant

David Enoch Sillitoe

First Defendant/respondent

International Computers Limited

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Under CPR 24(2)(a)(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate in a defamation claim involving disputed facts to be tried by a jury
  2. 2 Whether the claimant had a real prospect of success in establishing that the defamatory statement was fabricated
  3. 3 Whether the defence of qualified privilege or justification could be determined without a jury

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because there was a clear factual dispute as to whether the claimant made the alleged threats, and such a dispute in a defamation case must be determined by a jury, not by summary judgment. The judge erred in placing the burden on the claimant and in failing to recognise that the defendants bore the burden of proving justification.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Summary judgment set aside
  • Case remitted for trial by jury