NATHALIE RUTA v DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

NATHALIE RUTA v DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

The claim was struck out because the particulars of claim failed to plead publication to a third party, failed to comply with the requirements of CPR and Practice Direction 53B, failed to plead serious harm or malice, and was statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The claimant had not made any application to amend or to disapply the limitation period, and there was no real prospect of success on the facts or law.

Parties
Claimant: Nathalie Ruta; Defendant: Department for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel and Malicious Falsehood) / Application to Strike Out And/or 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 7 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathalie Ruta

Claimant

Department for Work and Pensions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel and Malicious Falsehood) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses a reasonable 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 comply with CPR and Practice Direction 53B

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because the particulars of claim failed to plead publication to a third party, failed to comply with the requirements of CPR and Practice Direction 53B, failed to plead serious harm or malice, and was statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The claimant had not made any application to amend or to disapply the limitation period, and there was no real prospect of success on the facts or law.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • The claim is struck out in its entirety.