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 was struck out because the inordinate and inexcusable delays demonstrated that the proceedings no longer served a useful purpose, the gravity of the alleged defamation did not justify the deployment of significant court resources, and Mr Adelson ceased to have the intention to prosecute the action after March 2008. The continued prosecution of the claim was disproportionate and constituted an abuse of process.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2497 (QB)
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 (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, Striking Out Claims, Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Justification, Limitation Period
Defamation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Delay in Prosecution Striking Out Claims Qualified Privilege Fair Comment Justification +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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheldon Gary Adelson

Claimant

Las Vegas Sands Corp

Claimant

Debbie Anderson

Defendant

Unite Here!

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (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 justifies the use of court resources
  3. 3 Whether the gravity of the alleged defamation justifies continuation of proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because the inordinate and inexcusable delays demonstrated that the proceedings no longer served a useful purpose, the gravity of the alleged defamation did not justify the deployment of significant court resources, and Mr Adelson ceased to have the intention to prosecute the action after March 2008. The continued prosecution of the claim was disproportionate and constituted an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process

Orders

  • The claim of the First Claimant is struck out in its entirety.
  • The claim of the Second Claimant is struck out by agreement.