Cammish v Hughes

Cammish v Hughes

The words complained of, in their natural and ordinary meaning, impute serious incompetence to the Claimant as a businessman and protest leader, passing the threshold of seriousness for actionable libel. The Defendant's conduct, including persistent denial of authorship and lack of apology, supports the need for vindication. The claim is not an abuse of process and should proceed to trial.

Parties
Claimant: Robin Cammish; Defendant: Clive Hughes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Judgment on Strike Out and Amendment Applications
Outcome
Jameel application to strike out dismissed; permission to amend paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of Particulars of Claim granted by consent; remainder of amendment application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Business Reputation, Abuse of Process, Threshold of Seriousness, Vindication, Honest Comment
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Business Reputation Abuse of Process Threshold of Seriousness Vindication Honest Comment

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Cammish

Claimant

Clive Hughes

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Judgment on Strike Out and Amendment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are defamatory and pass the threshold of seriousness
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process under the Jameel jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's conduct warrants the claim proceeding to trial

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of, in their natural and ordinary meaning, impute serious incompetence to the Claimant as a businessman and protest leader, passing the threshold of seriousness for actionable libel. The Defendant's conduct, including persistent denial of authorship and lack of apology, supports the need for vindication. The claim is not an abuse of process and should proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim proceeds to trial
  • Permission to amend paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of Particulars of Claim