Adelson & Anor v Anderson & Anor

Adelson & Anor v Anderson & Anor

The action is struck out as an abuse of process because the inordinate and inexcusable delay demonstrates that the claimant ceased to have a genuine intention to prosecute the action after March 2008, and what is now at stake does not justify the deployment of court resources. The delay infers the claimant did not regard the allegations as particularly grave, and there is no evidence of ongoing harm or repetition. The prospect of meaningful vindication is minimal, and the resources required for trial are disproportionate to any possible outcome.

Parties
Claimant: Sheldon Gary Adelson; Claimant: Las Vegas Sands Corp; Defendant: Debbie Anderson; Defendant: Unite Here!
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Libel/defamation / Application to Strike Out Claim for Abuse of Process
Outcome
Claim struck out as an abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Delay in Prosecution, Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Justification, Limitation Periods
Defamation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Delay in Prosecution Qualified Privilege Fair Comment Justification Limitation Periods

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 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheldon Gary Adelson

Claimant

Las Vegas Sands Corp

Claimant

Debbie Anderson

Defendant

Unite Here!

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel/defamation / Application to Strike Out Claim for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process due to inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether the continued prosecution of the claim serves any useful purpose or is proportionate to the resources required
  3. 3 Whether the delay infers lack of interest in vindication by the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The action is struck out as an abuse of process because the inordinate and inexcusable delay demonstrates that the claimant ceased to have a genuine intention to prosecute the action after March 2008, and what is now at stake does not justify the deployment of court resources. The delay infers the claimant did not regard the allegations as particularly grave, and there is no evidence of ongoing harm or repetition. The prospect of meaningful vindication is minimal, and the resources required for trial are disproportionate to any possible outcome.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process

Orders

  • The action is struck out in its entirety.
  • No further orders as to damages or injunctions.