Brown & Anor v AB [2018] EWHC 623 (QB) (21 March 2018)

Brown & Anor v AB [2018] EWHC 623 (QB) (21 March 2018)

The Defendant is permitted to withdraw the relevant admission and amend her Defence, but the Amended Defence is struck out for prolixity and lack of clarity. The Defendant is given one final opportunity to file a compliant Defence not exceeding 25 pages. The Defendant's application to strike out the claim or for summary judgment is dismissed except for one sub-paragraph, which is struck out for failing to disclose an arguable claim. The court declines to summarily determine limitation and other factual issues, which must proceed to trial.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 623 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Brenda Mary Brown; Claimant: Dr. Ernest Neville Brown trading as Maple Hayes Hall School; Defendant: A B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation, Malicious Falsehood, Harassment, Nuisance) / Interlocutory Applications (amendment, Strike Out, Summary Judgment)
Outcome
Amended Defence struck out; Defendant permitted to file fresh Defence within 25 pages; one sub-paragraph of Particulars of Claim struck out; otherwise, applications to strike out claim or for summary judgment dismissed.
Legal Topics
Malicious Falsehood, Libel, Slander, Harassment, Nuisance, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admissions, Limitation, Qualified Privilege
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Education Law Malicious Falsehood Libel Slander Harassment +7 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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brenda Mary Brown

Claimant

Dr. Ernest Neville Brown trading as Maple Hayes Hall School

Claimant

A B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation, Malicious Falsehood, Harassment, Nuisance) / Interlocutory Applications (amendment, Strike Out, Summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant should be permitted to amend her Defence and withdraw admissions
  2. 2 Whether the claim or defence should be struck out or summary judgment granted
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded statements are actionable in defamation or malicious falsehood

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant is permitted to withdraw the relevant admission and amend her Defence, but the Amended Defence is struck out for prolixity and lack of clarity. The Defendant is given one final opportunity to file a compliant Defence not exceeding 25 pages. The Defendant's application to strike out the claim or for summary judgment is dismissed except for one sub-paragraph, which is struck out for failing to disclose an arguable claim. The court declines to summarily determine limitation and other factual issues, which must proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Amended Defence struck out; Defendant permitted to file fresh Defence within 25 pages; one sub-paragraph of Particulars of Claim struck out; otherwise, applications to strike out claim or for summary judgment dismissed.

Orders

  • Amended Defence struck out
  • Defendant to file fresh Defence not exceeding 25 pages