McGrath & Anor v Dawkins & Ors

McGrath & Anor v Dawkins & Ors

The appeal was refused because the judge correctly found that the continuation of the defamation claim would be an abuse of process given the limited publication, marginal damage, and disproportionate costs. The findings on responsibility for publication, defamatory meaning, and damages were properly made, and the defendants were likely to succeed on justification or fair comment.

Parties
Appellant: Christopher Anthony McGrath; Appellant: MCG Productions Limited; Respondent: Professor Richard Dawkins; Respondent: The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science; Respondent: Amazon EU SARL (trading as Amazon.co.uk); Respondent: Vaughan John Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Summary Judgment, Damages, Publication Responsibility
Defamation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Summary Judgment Damages Publication Responsibility

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

Parties

Christopher Anthony McGrath

Appellant

MCG Productions Limited

Appellant

Professor Richard Dawkins

Respondent

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Respondent

Amazon EU SARL (trading as Amazon.co.uk)

Respondent

Vaughan John Jones

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the continuation of the defamation claim was an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were responsible for publication of alleged defamatory remarks
  3. 3 Whether the words complained of were defamatory

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the judge correctly found that the continuation of the defamation claim would be an abuse of process given the limited publication, marginal damage, and disproportionate costs. The findings on responsibility for publication, defamatory meaning, and damages were properly made, and the defendants were likely to succeed on justification or fair comment.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed