Tesla Motors Ltd & Anor v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2012] EWHC 310 (QB) (23 February 2012)

Tesla Motors Ltd & Anor v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2012] EWHC 310 (QB) (23 February 2012)

Permission to amend the particulars of claim is refused because the proposed amendments are so vague and deficient in identifying the extent of damage attributable to the alleged falsehoods (as opposed to admitted truths) that the claim does not have a real prospect of success or disclose a real and substantial tort. The claimants have failed to plead causation and quantification of damage with sufficient particularity, and there is no indication that these deficiencies are capable of remedy. Claims relating to other models or outside the limitation period are also unsustainable.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 310 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Tesla Motors Ltd; Claimant: Tesla Motors Inc; Defendant: British Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (libel and Malicious Falsehood) / Interlocutory Judgment on Application to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Permission to amend refused; claim remains struck out.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Pleading Particularity, Causation of Damage, Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods, Summary Judgment, Abuse of Process
Media Law Defamation Tort Law Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Pleading Particularity Causation of Damage +4 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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesla Motors Ltd

Claimant

Tesla Motors Inc

Claimant

British Broadcasting Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (libel and Malicious Falsehood) / Interlocutory Judgment on Application to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' proposed amendments to the particulars of claim in malicious falsehood and libel satisfy the requirements of proper pleading and have a real prospect of success; whether the claimants have sufficiently pleaded causation and quantification of damage attributable to the alleged falsehoods as opposed to admitted truths; whether permission should be granted to amend to reintroduce a libel claim on a new meaning; whether claims for damages relating to other models or outside the limitation period are sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the particulars of claim is refused because the proposed amendments are so vague and deficient in identifying the extent of damage attributable to the alleged falsehoods (as opposed to admitted truths) that the claim does not have a real prospect of success or disclose a real and substantial tort. The claimants have failed to plead causation and quantification of damage with sufficient particularity, and there is no indication that these deficiencies are capable of remedy. Claims relating to other models or outside the limitation period are also unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend refused; claim remains struck out.

Orders

  • Permission to amend the particulars of claim in malicious falsehood and libel is refused.
  • The claim remains struck out as previously ordered.