Apsion v Dilnot [2011] EWHC 869 (QB) (18 April 2011)

Apsion v Dilnot [2011] EWHC 869 (QB) (18 April 2011)

The claim was struck out because the statements complained of were made on occasions protected by absolute privilege, the action constituted a collateral attack on disciplinary findings, and the claim was brought outside the limitation period with no valid basis for extension.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 869
Parties
Claimant: Robert Apsion; Defendant: Antony Dilnot
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Malicious Falsehood Claim / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Absolute Privilege, Collateral Attack, Limitation Period, Apparent Bias, Practice Direction Compliance
Defamation Professional Discipline Civil Procedure Absolute Privilege Collateral Attack Limitation Period Apparent Bias Practice Direction Compliance

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Apsion

Claimant

Antony Dilnot

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Malicious Falsehood Claim / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made to the Bar Standards Board are protected by absolute privilege
  2. 2 Whether the claim constitutes a collateral attack on disciplinary findings
  3. 3 Whether the claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because the statements complained of were made on occasions protected by absolute privilege, the action constituted a collateral attack on disciplinary findings, and the claim was brought outside the limitation period with no valid basis for extension.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out
  • Action dismissed