Ranger v Pycraft [2021] EWHC 502 (QB) (08 March 2021)

Ranger v Pycraft [2021] EWHC 502 (QB) (08 March 2021)

The defendant's briefings to a journalist and subsequent listserv posting constituted further defamatory statements of the same or similar nature as those previously complained of, and were 'published' within the meaning of the undertakings, thus breaching the contract. The defendant also probably failed to delete...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 502
Parties
Claimant: Lance Dorian Ranger; Defendant: Charles Pycraft
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Breach of Contract (enforcement of Undertakings) / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; breach of contract found; costs remedy granted; injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Settlement Undertakings, Defamation (settlement Context), Interpretation of Contractual Terms, Injunctions, Freedom of Expression
Contract Law Media Law Enforcement of Settlement Undertakings Defamation (settlement Context) Interpretation of Contractual Terms Injunctions Freedom of Expression

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lance Dorian Ranger

Claimant

Charles Pycraft

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Breach of Contract (enforcement of Undertakings) / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached undertakings not to publish further defamatory statements of the same or similar nature to those previously complained of
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to delete specified defamatory material as required by the undertakings
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'publish' and 'defamatory statements' in the context of undertakings settling threatened defamation proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's briefings to a journalist and subsequent listserv posting constituted further defamatory statements of the same or similar nature as those previously complained of, and were 'published' within the meaning of the undertakings, thus breaching the contract. The defendant also probably failed to delete three specified tweets as required. The undertakings were sufficiently clear and enforceable. However, a permanent injunction was refused as the risk of future breach was not sufficiently high.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; breach of contract found; costs remedy granted; injunction refused.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant's legal costs as provided in the undertakings, to be assessed if not agreed.
  • Application for a permanent injunction refused.