Suresh v Samad & Ors [2017] EWHC 76 (QB) (27 January 2017)

Suresh v Samad & Ors [2017] EWHC 76 (QB) (27 January 2017)

The defendants' draft amended defence failed to disclose any reasonable basis for the defences of truth or public interest for the first and second defendants, and there was no real prospect of success at trial. The third defendant's position on public interest was distinct and not hopeless, so he was allowed an opportunity to re-cast his defence. Permission to amend was refused for the first and second defendants on both defences, and summary judgment was granted to the extent that no further opportunity to amend would be given.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 76
Parties
Claimant: Selvaratnam Suresh; Defendant: Abdul Samad; Defendant: Amirthalingam Nagarajah; Defendant: Kajananan Sathananthan; Defendant: Youtube user 'Niyayam Enge'
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Adjourned Hearing of Claimant's Application to Strike Out/amend Defences and for Summary Judgment; Cross Application for Permission to Amend Defences
Outcome
Permission to amend refused for first and second defendants; summary judgment granted against them on truth and public interest; third defendant permitted to re-cast public interest defence; trial to proceed on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Libel, Summary Judgment, Pleading Amendments, Defences of Truth and Public Interest, Charity Law
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Summary Judgment Pleading Amendments Defences of Truth and Public Interest Charity Law

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Selvaratnam Suresh

Claimant

Abdul Samad

Defendant

Amirthalingam Nagarajah

Defendant

Kajananan Sathananthan

Defendant

Youtube user 'Niyayam Enge'

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Adjourned Hearing of Claimant's Application to Strike Out/amend Defences and for Summary Judgment; Cross Application for Permission to Amend Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' draft amended pleading discloses a reasonable basis for defences of truth and/or public interest under the Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether those defences have a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether permission to amend should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' draft amended defence failed to disclose any reasonable basis for the defences of truth or public interest for the first and second defendants, and there was no real prospect of success at trial. The third defendant's position on public interest was distinct and not hopeless, so he was allowed an opportunity to re-cast his defence. Permission to amend was refused for the first and second defendants on both defences, and summary judgment was granted to the extent that no further opportunity to amend would be given.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend refused for first and second defendants; summary judgment granted against them on truth and public interest; third defendant permitted to re-cast public interest defence; trial to proceed on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Permission to amend defences of truth and public interest refused for first and second defendants.
  • Summary judgment granted against first and second defendants on those issues.