Bray v Deutsche Bank AG [2008] EWHC 1263 (QB) (12 June 2008)

Bray v Deutsche Bank AG [2008] EWHC 1263 (QB) (12 June 2008)

The claimant's case on publication and malice against X and Y is sufficiently particularised and based on admissible evidence to proceed to trial; the plea of malice against the Management Board is insufficiently particularised and does not meet the threshold for dishonesty; the defence of qualified privilege is available to the defendant unless malice is proved; summary judgment is refused on the claim against X and Y but granted on the claim against the Management Board; the application for trial by judge alone is premature at this stage.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1263
Parties
Claimant: Stuart Bray; Defendant: Deutsche Bank AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment and Application for Trial by Judge Alone
Outcome
Summary judgment refused on the claim against X and Y; summary judgment granted on the claim against the Management Board; application for trial by judge alone refused as premature.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Summary Judgment, Trial by Jury, Corporate Liability
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Qualified Privilege Malice Summary Judgment Trial by Jury +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Bray

Claimant

Deutsche Bank AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment and Application for Trial by Judge Alone

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's case on publication and malice against identified individuals is sufficiently particularised to proceed to trial
  2. 2 Whether the plea of malice against the Management Board meets the threshold for dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether the defence of qualified privilege is available to the defendant in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's case on publication and malice against X and Y is sufficiently particularised and based on admissible evidence to proceed to trial; the plea of malice against the Management Board is insufficiently particularised and does not meet the threshold for dishonesty; the defence of qualified privilege is available to the defendant unless malice is proved; summary judgment is refused on the claim against X and Y but granted on the claim against the Management Board; the application for trial by judge alone is premature at this stage.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused on the claim against X and Y; summary judgment granted on the claim against the Management Board; application for trial by judge alone refused as premature.

Orders

  • Claim against X and Y to proceed to trial
  • Claim against the Management Board struck out