Ameyaw v McGoldrick & Ors

Ameyaw v McGoldrick & Ors

The Defendants’ strike out/summary judgment application should be listed for an oral hearing as both parties now agree; preliminary issues will be determined without a hearing as no objection was made; the application to invoke the Barrell jurisdiction is dismissed as the order was already sealed and the application is wholly without merit; the application for a stay pending appeal is refused as no grounds with real prospect of success have been shown.

Parties
Claimant: Yvonne Ameyaw; Defendant: Christina McGoldrick; Defendant: Louise Coyne; Defendant: PricewaterhouseCoopers Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Application partly allowed and partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Preliminary Issues, Recusal, Barrell Jurisdiction, Open Justice, Mc Kenzie Friend, Stay of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Defamation Media Law Strike Out Summary Judgment Preliminary Issues Recusal Barrell Jurisdiction +3 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yvonne Ameyaw

Claimant

Christina McGoldrick

Defendant

Louise Coyne

Defendant

PricewaterhouseCoopers Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants’ strike out and summary judgment application should be determined on the papers or at an oral hearing
  2. 2 Whether preliminary issues regarding meaning, defamatory nature, and fact/opinion status of statements should be determined without a hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant’s application to invoke the Barrell jurisdiction to amend or expunge parts of a previous judgment should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants’ strike out/summary judgment application should be listed for an oral hearing as both parties now agree; preliminary issues will be determined without a hearing as no objection was made; the application to invoke the Barrell jurisdiction is dismissed as the order was already sealed and the application is wholly without merit; the application for a stay pending appeal is refused as no grounds with real prospect of success have been shown.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed and partly dismissed

Orders

  • Paragraph 4 of the 3 July Order set aside; Defendants’ strike out/summary judgment application to be listed for oral hearing
  • Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 3 July Order to be varied to reflect oral hearing