Morrissey v McNicholas & Anor [2011] EWHC 2738 (QB) (26 October 2011)

Morrissey v McNicholas & Anor [2011] EWHC 2738 (QB) (26 October 2011)

The claimant's explanation for delay is credible and not disproved; the seriousness of the imputation and extent of publication justify continuation; and the prejudice from delay does not reach the threshold where a fair trial is impossible. Striking out would be disproportionate.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2738
Parties
Claimant: Stephen Patrick Morrissey; Defendant: Connor McNicholas; Defendant: IPC Media Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Application to Strike Out for Abuse of Process
Outcome
Defendants' application to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Abuse of Process, Delay in Litigation, Article 10 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Fair Comment, Malice, Aggravated Damages
Defamation Civil Procedure Human Rights Libel Abuse of Process Delay in Litigation Article 10 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +4 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Patrick Morrissey

Claimant

Connor McNicholas

Defendant

IPC Media Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Application to Strike Out for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's delay in prosecuting the libel action constitutes an abuse of process justifying strike out
  2. 2 Whether the continuation of the action would be disproportionate or unfair to the defendants under Article 10 and Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the delay has caused such prejudice that a fair trial is no longer possible

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's explanation for delay is credible and not disproved; the seriousness of the imputation and extent of publication justify continuation; and the prejudice from delay does not reach the threshold where a fair trial is impossible. Striking out would be disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Action to proceed to trial
  • Parties invited to agree directions for early trial