Suresh v Samad & Ors

Suresh v Samad & Ors

The defendants' draft amended defences of truth and public interest failed to disclose any reasonable basis or real prospect of success for the first and second defendants. The factual allegations were vague, unsupported, and incapable of sustaining the pleaded imputations. The evidence overwhelmingly supported the claimant and contradicted the defendants' case. There was no justification for further opportunity to amend. However, the third defendant's position regarding public interest was distinct and not hopeless, so he was allowed a further opportunity to plead that defence, subject to improved drafting.

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
Civil Defamation (libel) / Application for Summary Judgment and Permission to Amend Defence
Outcome
Permission to amend to plead truth and public interest refused for first and second defendants; summary judgment granted against them on those issues. Third defendant granted opportunity to re-plead public interest defence. Case to proceed to trial 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 5 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

Civil Defamation (libel) / Application for Summary Judgment and Permission to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be granted permission to amend their defences to plead truth and/or public interest under the Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to summary judgment on the claims against the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the draft amended defences disclose a reasonable basis or real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' draft amended defences of truth and public interest failed to disclose any reasonable basis or real prospect of success for the first and second defendants. The factual allegations were vague, unsupported, and incapable of sustaining the pleaded imputations. The evidence overwhelmingly supported the claimant and contradicted the defendants' case. There was no justification for further opportunity to amend. However, the third defendant's position regarding public interest was distinct and not hopeless, so he was allowed a further opportunity to plead that defence, subject to improved drafting.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend to plead truth and public interest refused for first and second defendants; summary judgment granted against them on those issues. Third defendant granted opportunity to re-plead public interest defence. Case to proceed to trial on remaining issues.

Orders

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