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

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

The delay in prosecuting the claim, while significant, was credibly explained by the claimant's dispute with his former manager and did not amount to an abuse of process. The seriousness of the imputation, the extent of publication, and the claimant's continuing prominence mean the action serves a legitimate purpose. Although there is some prejudice due to loss of memory, a fair trial remains possible. Striking out would be disproportionate.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2738 (QB)
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 Prosecution, Article 10 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Fair Trial, Malice, Aggravated Damages
Defamation Civil Procedure Human Rights Libel Abuse of Process Delay in Prosecution Article 10 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +3 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 10 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 claim should be struck out as an abuse of process due to delay
  2. 2 Whether the delay prevents a fair trial
  3. 3 Whether the claim serves a legitimate purpose in protecting reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in prosecuting the claim, while significant, was credibly explained by the claimant's dispute with his former manager and did not amount to an abuse of process. The seriousness of the imputation, the extent of publication, and the claimant's continuing prominence mean the action serves a legitimate purpose. Although there is some prejudice due to loss of memory, a fair trial remains possible. 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