Glenn v Kline [2020] EWHC 3182 (QB) (25 November 2020)

Glenn v Kline [2020] EWHC 3182 (QB) (25 November 2020)

Default judgment was granted because the Defendant was properly served, failed to file an Acknowledgement of Service or Defence, and the pleaded facts established viable claims for defamation and harassment. An injunction was justified to restrain further defamatory publications, as the Defendant's conduct showed a likelihood of repetition and the relief was proportionate. The harassment claim added nothing to the terms of the injunction beyond the defamation claim.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3182
Parties
Claimant: Martin Glenn; Defendant: Craig Kline
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Harassment / Application for Default Judgment and Injunction
Outcome
Default judgment granted for the Claimant; injunction to be granted in appropriate terms; damages and order for publication of summary judgment adjourned for later determination.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Injunctions, Service of Process, Freedom of Expression, Damages Assessment
Defamation Harassment Civil Procedure Default Judgment Injunctions Service of Process Freedom of Expression Damages Assessment

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Glenn

Claimant

Craig Kline

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Harassment / Application for Default Judgment and Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be granted for failure to file Acknowledgement of Service
  2. 2 Whether an injunction should be granted to restrain further defamatory publications and harassment
  3. 3 Appropriate terms of any injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Default judgment was granted because the Defendant was properly served, failed to file an Acknowledgement of Service or Defence, and the pleaded facts established viable claims for defamation and harassment. An injunction was justified to restrain further defamatory publications, as the Defendant's conduct showed a likelihood of repetition and the relief was proportionate. The harassment claim added nothing to the terms of the injunction beyond the defamation claim.

Court Disposition

Default judgment granted for the Claimant; injunction to be granted in appropriate terms; damages and order for publication of summary judgment adjourned for later determination.

Orders

  • Judgment in default for the Claimant on claims for defamation and harassment
  • Permanent injunction to restrain further defamatory publications and harassment (final terms to be determined)