Adelson & Anor v Anderson & Anor [2011] EWHC 2497 (QB) (07 October 2011)

Adelson & Anor v Anderson & Anor [2011] EWHC 2497 (QB) (07 October 2011)

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process because the inordinate and inexcusable delays demonstrate that the claimant ceased to have the intention to prosecute the action to trial after March 2008, and what is now at stake does not justify the deployment of further court resources. The continued prosecution of the claim would serve no useful purpose, and the gravity of the alleged defamation is diminished by the passage of time and lack of evidence of ongoing harm.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2497
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 Action / 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, Striking Out Claims, Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Justification, Limitation Period, Freedom of Expression
Defamation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Delay in Prosecution Striking Out Claims Qualified Privilege Fair Comment Justification +2 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 5 Authorities cited 22 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 Action / 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 claimant ceased to have the intention to prosecute the action to trial

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process because the inordinate and inexcusable delays demonstrate that the claimant ceased to have the intention to prosecute the action to trial after March 2008, and what is now at stake does not justify the deployment of further court resources. The continued prosecution of the claim would serve no useful purpose, and the gravity of the alleged defamation is diminished by the passage of time and lack of evidence of ongoing harm.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process

Orders

  • The claim is struck out in its entirety under CPR Part 3.4(2)(b) as an abuse of process.
  • No injunction or damages are awarded.