Dhir v Saddler [2017] EWHC 3155 (QB) (06 December 2017)

Dhir v Saddler [2017] EWHC 3155 (QB) (06 December 2017)

The Defendant's statement that the Claimant 'threatened to slit my throat' imputed the commission of a criminal offence (threat to kill) and was actionable per se. The statement was published to at least 90 people and was sufficiently serious to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation. The Defendant failed to prove the truth of the imputation. There was no abuse of process. The Claimant is entitled to damages.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3155
Parties
Claimant: Raj Dhir; Defendant: Bronte Saddler
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Slander/defamation / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed for the Claimant. Judgment for the Claimant.
Legal Topics
Slander, Serious Harm, Truth Defence, Abuse of Process, Publication, Damages
Defamation Tort Slander Serious Harm Truth Defence Abuse of Process Publication Damages

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Dhir

Claimant

Bronte Saddler

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Slander/defamation / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words spoken by the Defendant were actionable per se as slander imputing a criminal offence
  2. 2 Whether the publication caused or was likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation under s.1 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be dismissed as an abuse of process under Jameel principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's statement that the Claimant 'threatened to slit my throat' imputed the commission of a criminal offence (threat to kill) and was actionable per se. The statement was published to at least 90 people and was sufficiently serious to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation. The Defendant failed to prove the truth of the imputation. There was no abuse of process. The Claimant is entitled to damages.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed for the Claimant. Judgment for the Claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the Claimant.
  • Defendant restrained from repeating the allegation.