Jon Richard Ltd v Gornall [2013] EWHC 1357 (QB) (16 May 2013)

Jon Richard Ltd v Gornall [2013] EWHC 1357 (QB) (16 May 2013)

The Defendant was responsible for publishing two defamatory and false letters to Debenhams, as established by expert evidence linking her computers to the letters, her motive, and characteristic errors in the letters. There was no real prospect of a successful defence. The Claimant was entitled to declarations, an injunction, and damages capped at £10,000. Indemnity costs were justified due to the Defendant's attempt to tamper with evidence.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1357
Parties
Claimant: Jon Richard Limited; Defendant: Anna Gornall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim (summary Relief) / Judgment on Summary Application Under Section 8 Defamation Act 1996
Outcome
Claimant succeeds. Summary judgment granted.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Corporate Defamation, Damages Cap, Injunction, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Defamation Tort Summary Judgment Corporate Defamation Damages Cap Injunction Costs (indemnity Basis)

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jon Richard Limited

Claimant

Anna Gornall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Claim (summary Relief) / Judgment on Summary Application Under Section 8 Defamation Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant published defamatory letters to Debenhams about the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of were defamatory and false
  3. 3 Whether summary relief should be granted under section 8 of the Defamation Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was responsible for publishing two defamatory and false letters to Debenhams, as established by expert evidence linking her computers to the letters, her motive, and characteristic errors in the letters. There was no real prospect of a successful defence. The Claimant was entitled to declarations, an injunction, and damages capped at £10,000. Indemnity costs were justified due to the Defendant's attempt to tamper with evidence.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds. Summary judgment granted.

Orders

  • Declarations that the words complained of in both letters were defamatory and false
  • Injunction restraining repetition of the defamatory allegations