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 it failed to plead publication to a third party, did not comply with the requirements for pleading serious harm or malice, was statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980, and the claimant had no real prospect of successfully amending or pursuing the claim. The claimant failed to make necessary applications to amend or disapply limitation, and the particulars of claim were fundamentally defective.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1535 (QB)
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, Serious Harm Requirement, Pleading Requirements, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Limitation Periods Serious Harm Requirement Pleading Requirements +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 7 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 the claim is statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim adequately plead publication to a third party and serious harm

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because it failed to plead publication to a third party, did not comply with the requirements for pleading serious harm or malice, was statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980, and the claimant had no real prospect of successfully amending or pursuing the claim. The claimant failed to make necessary applications to amend or disapply limitation, and the particulars of claim were fundamentally defective.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

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