Culla Park Ltd. & Ors v Richards & Ors [2007] EWHC 1687 (QB) (13 July 2007)

Culla Park Ltd. & Ors v Richards & Ors [2007] EWHC 1687 (QB) (13 July 2007)

The case requires prolonged examination of documents which cannot conveniently be made with a jury; therefore, trial will be by judge alone. The claimants are entitled to summary judgment on the libel claims against all defendants except for publication 2B by Mr and Mrs Kristaps, as there is no real prospect of a substantive defence succeeding. The remaining issues, including injurious falsehood and aggravated damages, will proceed to trial by judge alone.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1687
Parties
Claimant: Culla Park Ltd; Claimant: David Lowes-Bird; Claimant: Yvonne Lowes-Bird; Claimant: Joshua Lowes-Bird; Defendant: David Richards; Defendant: Phyllis Thomas (aka Richards); Defendant: Karl Kristaps; Defendant: Angela Kristaps
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Injurious Falsehood / Pre Trial Applications: Summary Judgment and Mode of Trial
Outcome
Claimants' applications granted in part
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Mode of Trial, Libel, Injurious Falsehood, Aggravated Damages, Limitation Periods
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Mode of Trial Libel Injurious Falsehood Aggravated Damages +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Culla Park Ltd

Claimant

David Lowes-Bird

Claimant

Yvonne Lowes-Bird

Claimant

Joshua Lowes-Bird

Claimant

David Richards

Defendant

Phyllis Thomas (aka Richards)

Defendant

Karl Kristaps

Defendant

Angela Kristaps

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Injurious Falsehood / Pre Trial Applications: Summary Judgment and Mode of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be by judge alone or with a jury under s.69 Supreme Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the claimants on the defamation claims under CPR Part 24
  3. 3 Whether any substantive defence is available to the defendants in the defamation claims

Ratio Decidendi

The case requires prolonged examination of documents which cannot conveniently be made with a jury; therefore, trial will be by judge alone. The claimants are entitled to summary judgment on the libel claims against all defendants except for publication 2B by Mr and Mrs Kristaps, as there is no real prospect of a substantive defence succeeding. The remaining issues, including injurious falsehood and aggravated damages, will proceed to trial by judge alone.

Court Disposition

Claimants' applications granted in part

Orders

  • Trial to proceed by judge alone for all issues
  • Summary judgment granted to claimants on libel claims except for publication 2B by Mr and Mrs Kristaps