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 against X and Y for publication and malice is sufficiently particularised and based on admissible evidence to proceed to trial; the case against the Management Board for malice is insufficiently pleaded and lacks the required particularity and probability to proceed. The defence of qualified privilege is not defeated by alleged inaccuracy alone, only by malice. 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 (QB)
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 in respect of the claim against X and Y; summary judgment granted in respect of 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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 is sufficiently particularised to proceed to trial
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies to the publication
  3. 3 Whether the case against the Management Board for malice is sufficiently pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's case against X and Y for publication and malice is sufficiently particularised and based on admissible evidence to proceed to trial; the case against the Management Board for malice is insufficiently pleaded and lacks the required particularity and probability to proceed. The defence of qualified privilege is not defeated by alleged inaccuracy alone, only by malice. 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 in respect of the claim against X and Y; summary judgment granted in respect of 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 for lack of particularity and probability of malice.