Jaqueline Samuels (t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors) v Christopher John Henry

Jaqueline Samuels (t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors) v Christopher John Henry

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant published or was responsible for the publication of any of the three posts. There was insufficient evidence to disbelieve the defendant's sworn denial, and the circumstantial evidence was not strong enough to justify a finding against him.

Parties
Claimant: Jaqueline Samuels t/a Samuels & Co. Solicitors; Defendant: Christopher John Henry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Preliminary Trial on Publication
Outcome
claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Publication, Burden of Proof, Malice, Serious Harm, Norwich Pharmacal Order
Defamation Malicious Falsehood Publication Burden of Proof Malice Serious Harm Norwich Pharmacal Order

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaqueline Samuels t/a Samuels & Co. Solicitors

Claimant

Christopher John Henry

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Preliminary Trial on Publication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant published or was legally responsible for publishing the three internet posts complained of
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence of malice for the malicious falsehood claim
  3. 3 Whether there was a properly pleaded case of serious harm for the defamation claim

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant published or was responsible for the publication of any of the three posts. There was insufficient evidence to disbelieve the defendant's sworn denial, and the circumstantial evidence was not strong enough to justify a finding against him.

Court Disposition

claims dismissed

Orders

  • Both claims are dismissed.