Ameyaw v McGoldrick & Ors (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 3035 (QB) (12 November 2020)

Ameyaw v McGoldrick & Ors (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 3035 (QB) (12 November 2020)

The claimant failed to provide sufficient, specific medical evidence to justify adjournment; the application for injunctions was unfounded as there was no real risk of misuse or disclosure of confidential medical information by the defendants; the publications complained of were not defamatory at common law or under s.1 Defamation Act 2013, nor did they meet the serious harm threshold; the claims were found to be wholly without merit, some were time-barred, and the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process; accordingly, the claims were struck out and summary judgment granted for the defendants.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3035 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Yvonne Ameyaw; Defendant: Christina McGoldrick; Defendant: Louise Coyne; Defendant: PricewaterhouseCoopers Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Related Torts / Judgment on Applications for Adjournment, Injunction, Preliminary Issues, Strike Out, and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; defendants' applications granted; claimant's applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Harassment, Negligence, Breach of Confidence, Breach of Privacy, Data Protection Rights, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Injunctions, Limitation, Privilege, Serious Harm Requirement, Adjournment for Medical Reasons
Defamation Tort Law Employment Law Data Protection Privacy Law Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood +12 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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yvonne Ameyaw

Claimant

Christina McGoldrick

Defendant

Louise Coyne

Defendant

PricewaterhouseCoopers Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Related Torts / Judgment on Applications for Adjournment, Injunction, Preliminary Issues, Strike Out, and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing should be adjourned due to claimant's alleged ill health
  2. 2 Whether to grant injunctions restraining use or disclosure of claimant's medical information
  3. 3 Whether the publications complained of are defamatory at common law or under s.1 Defamation Act 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide sufficient, specific medical evidence to justify adjournment; the application for injunctions was unfounded as there was no real risk of misuse or disclosure of confidential medical information by the defendants; the publications complained of were not defamatory at common law or under s.1 Defamation Act 2013, nor did they meet the serious harm threshold; the claims were found to be wholly without merit, some were time-barred, and the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process; accordingly, the claims were struck out and summary judgment granted for the defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; defendants' applications granted; claimant's applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Hearing to proceed in claimant's absence; adjournment refused.
  • Claimant's application for injunctions dismissed.