Orford v Rasmi Electronics [2002] EWCA Civ 725 (22 April 2002)

Orford v Rasmi Electronics [2002] EWCA Civ 725 (22 April 2002)

Permission to appeal granted on the misrepresentation claim due to procedural error in striking out without notice; defamation claim dismissed as statements were made on an occasion of qualified privilege and no malice was proven.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 725
Parties
Applicant: Colin G Orford; Respondent: Rasmi Electronics
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted on misrepresentation claim; refused on defamation claim and ancillary applications.
Legal Topics
Libel, Misrepresentation, Qualified Privilege, Aggravated Damages, Extension of Time, Stay of Execution
Employment Law Defamation Contract Law Libel Misrepresentation Qualified Privilege Aggravated Damages Extension of Time +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin G Orford

Applicant

Rasmi Electronics

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in striking out the misrepresentation claim without proper notice under CPR 3.3(3)
  2. 2 Whether the defamation claim was properly dismissed on grounds of qualified privilege and absence of malice
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was afforded sufficient opportunity to consider late-served documents

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal granted on the misrepresentation claim due to procedural error in striking out without notice; defamation claim dismissed as statements were made on an occasion of qualified privilege and no malice was proven.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted on misrepresentation claim; refused on defamation claim and ancillary applications.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted in respect of misrepresentation claim
  • Permission to appeal refused in respect of defamation claim