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, as the pleadings were vague, unsupported by evidence, and incapable of success at trial. The third defendant, as interviewer, may have a distinct position regarding public interest, and is permitted to re-cast his defence on that ground. Summary judgment or strike out is granted against the first and second defendants on these issues, but not against the third defendant regarding public interest.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 76 (QB)
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 / Interlocutory Applications for Strike Out, Summary Judgment, and Permission to Amend Defences
Outcome
Permission to amend to plead truth and public interest refused for first and second defendants; summary judgment/strike out granted against them on those issues; third defendant permitted to re-cast public interest defence; case to proceed to trial on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Libel, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Pleading Amendments, Defences of Truth and Public Interest, Defamation Act 2013
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Summary Judgment Strike Out Pleading Amendments Defences of Truth and Public Interest Defamation Act 2013

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 / Interlocutory Applications for Strike Out, Summary Judgment, and Permission to Amend Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' draft amended defence discloses a reasonable basis for defences of truth and/or public interest under the Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to strike out the defences and/or summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether the third defendant should be permitted to amend to plead public interest

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, as the pleadings were vague, unsupported by evidence, and incapable of success at trial. The third defendant, as interviewer, may have a distinct position regarding public interest, and is permitted to re-cast his defence on that ground. Summary judgment or strike out is granted against the first and second defendants on these issues, but not against the third defendant regarding public interest.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Permission to amend to plead truth and public interest refused for first and second defendants.
  • Summary judgment/strike out granted against first and second defendants on truth and public interest.