Davies v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc & Ors

Davies v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc & Ors

The High Court erred in striking out the claim based on late evidence without allowing the appellant an opportunity to respond or amend pleadings. The claim in defamation could proceed against the employer, even if the employee was misidentified, as vicarious liability and malice could still be established on the evidence. The refusal to adjourn and the dismissal for technical reasons was unjustified.

Parties
Appellant: Davies; Respondent: Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action restored and remitted to county court for directions and hearing.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Vicarious Liability, Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications
Defamation Tort Law Civil Procedure Libel Qualified Privilege Malice Vicarious Liability Amendment of Pleadings +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davies

Appellant

Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in striking out the appellant's defamation claim for failure to properly identify the alleged publisher and plead malice
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to adjourn to allow consideration of late evidence was justified
  3. 3 Whether the claim could proceed against the employer vicariously if the employee was misidentified

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in striking out the claim based on late evidence without allowing the appellant an opportunity to respond or amend pleadings. The claim in defamation could proceed against the employer, even if the employee was misidentified, as vicarious liability and malice could still be established on the evidence. The refusal to adjourn and the dismissal for technical reasons was unjustified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action restored and remitted to county court for directions and hearing.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Action restored