Wozniak & Anor v Randall [2021] EWHC 2341 (QB) (19 August 2021)

Wozniak & Anor v Randall [2021] EWHC 2341 (QB) (19 August 2021)

The defendant failed to establish the substantial truth of the defamatory imputations that the claimants were liars, thieves, bullies, or had brainwashed elderly villagers. While the dispute over land and rights of way was genuine and both sides acted with conviction, the evidence did not support the serious allegations made by the defendant. The defence of truth failed, and the publications were defamatory of the claimants.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2341 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Richard Wozniak; Claimant: Bridget Kelly; Defendant: Chloe Randall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Libel, Truth Defence, Ownership of Unregistered Land, Rights of Way, Ad Medium Filum, Village Green/common Land, Modification Order Under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Defamation Property Law Civil Procedure Libel Truth Defence Ownership of Unregistered Land Rights of Way Ad Medium Filum +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Wozniak

Claimant

Bridget Kelly

Claimant

Chloe Randall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's website articles were defamatory of the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the defence of truth was established for the defamatory meanings
  3. 3 Whether the claimants were liars, thieves, bullies, or had brainwashed elderly villagers as alleged

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to establish the substantial truth of the defamatory imputations that the claimants were liars, thieves, bullies, or had brainwashed elderly villagers. While the dispute over land and rights of way was genuine and both sides acted with conviction, the evidence did not support the serious allegations made by the defendant. The defence of truth failed, and the publications were defamatory of the claimants.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimants on the issue of liability for libel
  • Damages to be assessed