Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors

Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors

The court concluded that the claims, viewed collectively and in context, had no realistic prospect of success, being either mere vulgar abuse, fair comment, or privileged. It was not appropriate to lift the stays, and the court must protect public resources and defendants from abusive litigation. No civil restraint order was made at this stage due to procedural fairness, but stays remain in place.

Parties
Claimant: Nigel Smith; Defendant: ADVFN Plc; Defendant: Andrew Katsapaou; Defendant: Charles Love; Defendant: Wynne Pearce; Defendant: Michael Tuppen; Defendant: William Kane; Defendant: Christopher Byrne; Defendant: Roderick MacDonald; Defendant: Andrew Hanham; Defendant: S McCormick; Defendant: Alistair McIntyre; Defendant: John O’Brien
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Lifting Stay and Consideration of Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Stay of proceedings maintained; no civil restraint order made at this stage.
Legal Topics
Libel, Bulletin Board Communications, Civil Restraint Orders, Case Management, Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Abuse of Process
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Bulletin Board Communications Civil Restraint Orders Case Management Qualified Privilege Fair Comment +1 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Smith

Claimant

ADVFN Plc

Defendant

Andrew Katsapaou

Defendant

Charles Love

Defendant

Wynne Pearce

Defendant

Michael Tuppen

Defendant

William Kane

Defendant

Christopher Byrne

Defendant

Roderick MacDonald

Defendant

Andrew Hanham

Defendant

S McCormick

Defendant

Alistair McIntyre

Defendant

John O’Brien

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Lifting Stay and Consideration of Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether stays on multiple libel actions should be lifted
  2. 2 Whether civil restraint order should be imposed against claimant
  3. 3 Whether claims have realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded that the claims, viewed collectively and in context, had no realistic prospect of success, being either mere vulgar abuse, fair comment, or privileged. It was not appropriate to lift the stays, and the court must protect public resources and defendants from abusive litigation. No civil restraint order was made at this stage due to procedural fairness, but stays remain in place.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings maintained; no civil restraint order made at this stage.

Orders

  • Stays imposed by the Master on 25 April remain in place for all actions.
  • No civil restraint order made; claimant may not launch further proceedings without permission.