Cammish v Hughes

Cammish v Hughes

The words complained of were comment, not fact, and while they were defamatory and met the threshold of seriousness, the limited publication and the vindication already achieved meant there was no real and substantial tort to be tried. The proceedings were summarily dismissed on terms as to costs.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Robin Cammish; Appellant: Clive Hughes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Summary Dismissal Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; proceedings summarily dismissed on terms as to costs.
Legal Topics
Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Fact Vs Comment, Honest Comment Defence, Threshold of Seriousness, Summary Dismissal (jameel Abuse)
Defamation Civil Procedure Meaning of Defamatory Statements Fact Vs Comment Honest Comment Defence Threshold of Seriousness Summary Dismissal (jameel Abuse)

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Robin Cammish

Respondent

Clive Hughes

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Summary Dismissal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of were defamatory
  2. 2 Whether the words were fact or comment
  3. 3 Whether the threshold of seriousness was met

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of were comment, not fact, and while they were defamatory and met the threshold of seriousness, the limited publication and the vindication already achieved meant there was no real and substantial tort to be tried. The proceedings were summarily dismissed on terms as to costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; proceedings summarily dismissed on terms as to costs.

Orders

  • Summary dismissal of the proceedings.
  • Appellant to pay respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings down to and including the date of service of the defence, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.