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 and is not an abuse of process. The criminal and appellate courts did not determine the truth of the claimant's allegations against the Mail on Sunday or its journalists. The claim arises from the defendant's deliberate publication of a statement responding to the claimant's public allegations. The application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process is refused. Other grounds for summary judgment or strike out are to be considered separately.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2797 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Ward; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited; Defendant: Mail on Sunday
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (libel and Malicious Falsehood) / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment Prior to Defence
Outcome
Application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process refused; claim not dismissed on collateral attack grounds. Other applications to be considered.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Serious Harm (defamation Act 2013), Qualified Privilege, Summary Judgment
Media Law Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Abuse of Process Collateral Attack Serious Harm (defamation Act 2013) +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 14 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

Civil (libel and Malicious Falsehood) / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment Prior to Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is a collateral attack on criminal convictions and thus an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out or dismissed for lack of serious harm under s.1 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified privilege or lack of malice

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is not a collateral attack on the claimant's criminal convictions and is not an abuse of process. The criminal and appellate courts did not determine the truth of the claimant's allegations against the Mail on Sunday or its journalists. The claim arises from the defendant's deliberate publication of a statement responding to the claimant's public allegations. The application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process is refused. Other grounds for summary judgment or strike out are to be considered separately.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process refused; claim not dismissed on collateral attack grounds. Other applications to be considered.

Orders

  • Application to strike out claim as abuse of process refused.
  • Claim not dismissed on collateral attack grounds.