Cammish v Hughes [2012] EWHC 976 (QB) (20 April 2012)

Cammish v Hughes [2012] EWHC 976 (QB) (20 April 2012)

The words complained of, in their natural and ordinary meaning, impute that the Claimant is a seriously incompetent businessman, unfit to lead protestors, and pass the threshold of seriousness required for a libel action. The Defendant's application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process (Jameel) fails because the need for vindication remains, the Defendant's conduct aggravated the matter, and the publication was not trivial. The defence of honest comment may be available at trial but does not justify striking out at this stage.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 976
Parties
Claimant: Robin Cammish; Defendant: Clive Hughes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Interlocutory Judgment on Meaning, Seriousness, and Abuse of Process (jameel Application)
Outcome
Defendant's application to strike out the claim dismissed; permission to amend paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of the Particulars of Claim granted by consent; remainder of amendment application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Threshold of Seriousness, Abuse of Process, Honest Comment Defence, Vindication, Business/professional Reputation
Defamation Tort Law Civil Procedure Libel Threshold of Seriousness Abuse of Process Honest Comment Defence Vindication +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Cammish

Claimant

Clive Hughes

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Interlocutory Judgment on Meaning, Seriousness, and Abuse of Process (jameel Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of?
  2. 2 Do the words pass the threshold of seriousness required for a libel action?
  3. 3 Should the claim be struck out as an abuse of process under the Jameel jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of, in their natural and ordinary meaning, impute that the Claimant is a seriously incompetent businessman, unfit to lead protestors, and pass the threshold of seriousness required for a libel action. The Defendant's application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process (Jameel) fails because the need for vindication remains, the Defendant's conduct aggravated the matter, and the publication was not trivial. The defence of honest comment may be available at trial but does not justify striking out at this stage.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to strike out the claim dismissed; permission to amend paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of the Particulars of Claim granted by consent; remainder of amendment application dismissed.

Orders

  • Jameel application dismissed; claim proceeds to trial.
  • Permission to amend paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of the Particulars of Claim by consent.