Suresh v Samad & Ors (Rev 1)

Suresh v Samad & Ors (Rev 1)

The defendants' written statements of case disclose no reasonable grounds for defending the libel claim on publication, reference, meaning, or serious harm; no tenable affirmative defence is pleaded; summary judgment is granted for the claimant on those issues, but the defendants are given a final opportunity to plead viable defences of truth or public interest and to put in further evidence.

Parties
Claimant: Selvaratnam Suresh; Defendant: Abdul Samad; Defendant: Amirthalingam Nagarajah; Defendant: Kajananan Sathananthan; Defendant: Youtube user ‘Niyayam Enge’
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Judgment on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for claimant on publication, reference, meaning, and serious harm (Youtube); strike out of defences except as to responsibility for Youtube publication and serious harm from Facebook publication; adjournment for defendants to attempt to plead truth or public interest; defendants'...
Legal Topics
Libel, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Pleading Standards, Defences in Defamation, Serious Harm, Public Interest, Truth, Innocent Dissemination
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Summary Judgment Strike Out Pleading Standards Defences in Defamation Serious Harm +3 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 11 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 Judgment on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have pleaded any viable defence to the libel claim
  2. 2 Whether the defences should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be entered for the claimant on liability

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' written statements of case disclose no reasonable grounds for defending the libel claim on publication, reference, meaning, or serious harm; no tenable affirmative defence is pleaded; summary judgment is granted for the claimant on those issues, but the defendants are given a final opportunity to plead viable defences of truth or public interest and to put in further evidence.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for claimant on publication, reference, meaning, and serious harm (Youtube); strike out of defences except as to responsibility for Youtube publication and serious harm from Facebook publication; adjournment for defendants to attempt to plead truth or public interest; defendants'...

Orders

  • Defendants' defences struck out except as to responsibility for Youtube publication and serious harm from Facebook publication
  • Summary judgment for claimant on publication, reference, meaning, and serious harm (Youtube)