Ruta v Department for Work And Pensions [2022] EWHC 1535 (QB) (27 June 2022)

Ruta v Department for Work And Pensions [2022] EWHC 1535 (QB) (27 June 2022)

The claim was struck out because the particulars of claim did not plead publication to a third party, failed to comply with procedural requirements, did not adequately plead serious harm or malice, and any claim based on the earlier publication was statute barred. The claimant had not made applications to amend or to disapply the limitation period, and there was no real prospect of success on those applications.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1535
Parties
Claimant: Nathalie Ruta; Defendant: Department for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Libel and Malicious Falsehood Claim / Defendant's Application to Strike Out And/or for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Limitation Periods, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Serious Harm Requirement, Pleading Requirements
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Limitation Periods Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Serious Harm Requirement +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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathalie Ruta

Claimant

Department for Work and Pensions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Malicious Falsehood Claim / Defendant's Application to Strike Out And/or for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses a viable cause of action for libel or malicious falsehood
  2. 2 Whether there was publication to a third party
  3. 3 Whether the claim is statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because the particulars of claim did not plead publication to a third party, failed to comply with procedural requirements, did not adequately plead serious harm or malice, and any claim based on the earlier publication was statute barred. The claimant had not made applications to amend or to disapply the limitation period, and there was no real prospect of success on those applications.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • Claim struck out in its entirety
  • No permission to amend claim