Ward v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2797 (QB) (05 October 2020)

Ward v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2797 (QB) (05 October 2020)

The claim is not a collateral attack on the claimant's criminal convictions because neither the convictions nor subsequent appellate decisions determined the truth of the claimant's allegations against the Mail on Sunday or its journalists. The criminal and appellate courts did not adjudicate on the alleged misconduct, which was raised only as to witness credibility. Therefore, the action is not an abuse of process and should not be struck out on that ground.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2797
Parties
Claimant: Michael Ward; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited; Defendant: Mail on Sunday
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Libel and Malicious Falsehood Claim / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application to strike out claim as abuse of process refused. Claim not dismissed on collateral attack grounds. Other grounds for summary judgment or strike out not determined in this judgment.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Summary Judgment, Serious Harm Requirement, Qualified Privilege
Media Law Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Abuse of Process Collateral Attack Summary Judgment +2 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ward

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Mail on Sunday

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Malicious Falsehood Claim / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is a collateral attack on criminal convictions and thus an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a real prospect of demonstrating serious harm to reputation under s.1 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's statement is protected by qualified privilege as a reply to attack

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is not a collateral attack on the claimant's criminal convictions because neither the convictions nor subsequent appellate decisions determined the truth of the claimant's allegations against the Mail on Sunday or its journalists. The criminal and appellate courts did not adjudicate on the alleged misconduct, which was raised only as to witness credibility. Therefore, the action is not an abuse of process and should not be struck out on that ground.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out claim as abuse of process refused. Claim not dismissed on collateral attack grounds. Other grounds for summary judgment or strike out not determined in this judgment.

Orders

  • Application to strike out claim as abuse of process refused
  • Claimant ordered to pay court costs of £1987.00