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

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

Permission granted to Defendant to withdraw admission and amend Defence; Amended Defence struck out for prolixity and lack of clarity; Defendant allowed one final opportunity to file a compliant Defence not exceeding 25 pages; Claimants' application to strike out Defence granted; Defendant's application to strike out claim and for summary judgment dismissed except for one sub-paragraph; claim not struck out as abuse or for lack of serious harm; limitation and other issues to be determined at trial.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 623
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 / Interlocutory Applications (amendment, Strike Out, Summary Judgment)
Outcome
Amended Defence struck out; Defendant permitted to file fresh Defence; Claimants' application to strike out Defence granted; Defendant's application to strike out claim and for summary judgment dismissed except for one sub-paragraph; directions for disclosure and case management.
Legal Topics
Malicious Falsehood, Libel, Slander, Harassment, Nuisance, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admissions, Limitation, Qualified Privilege, Pleadings Standards
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Malicious Falsehood Libel Slander Harassment Nuisance +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 10 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 / 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 claim discloses reasonable grounds for defamation, malicious falsehood, harassment, nuisance

Ratio Decidendi

Permission granted to Defendant to withdraw admission and amend Defence; Amended Defence struck out for prolixity and lack of clarity; Defendant allowed one final opportunity to file a compliant Defence not exceeding 25 pages; Claimants' application to strike out Defence granted; Defendant's application to strike out claim and for summary judgment dismissed except for one sub-paragraph; claim not struck out as abuse or for lack of serious harm; limitation and other issues to be determined at trial.

Court Disposition

Amended Defence struck out; Defendant permitted to file fresh Defence; Claimants' application to strike out Defence granted; Defendant's application to strike out claim and for summary judgment dismissed except for one sub-paragraph; directions for disclosure and case management.

Orders

  • Amended Defence stands struck out.
  • Defendant to file fresh Defence not exceeding 25 pages, A4, 11-point font, 1.5-line spacing.