Mahon & Anor v Rahn & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 185 (8 June 2000)

Mahon & Anor v Rahn & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 185 (8 June 2000)

The TSA letter was not published on an occasion of absolute privilege; the claim for malicious prosecution should not be summarily dismissed as pleaded facts could, if proved, satisfy the requirements; and the judge was correct to refuse the defendants' application to amend their plea of justification as the new material was not previously consented to and would prejudice the claimants.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 185
Parties
Claimant: Patrick Mahon; Claimant: Andrew Kent; Defendant: Dr Christian Rahn; Defendant: Martin Bodmer; Defendant: Markus Kaiser; Defendant: Rolf Ernst; Defendant: Rahn & Bodmer (the bank)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Preliminary Issue Determination and Summary Dismissal Refusal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Absolute Privilege, Qualified Privilege, Justification, Malice, Publication to Regulatory Authorities, Summary Dismissal, Pleading Amendments
Defamation Malicious Prosecution Banking Law Criminal Law Absolute Privilege Qualified Privilege Justification Malice +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Mahon

Claimant

Andrew Kent

Claimant

Dr Christian Rahn

Defendant

Martin Bodmer

Defendant

Markus Kaiser

Defendant

Rolf Ernst

Defendant

Rahn & Bodmer (the bank)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Preliminary Issue Determination and Summary Dismissal Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the TSA letter was published on an occasion of absolute privilege
  2. 2 Whether the claim for malicious prosecution should be summarily dismissed
  3. 3 Whether defendants should be permitted to amend their plea of justification

Ratio Decidendi

The TSA letter was not published on an occasion of absolute privilege; the claim for malicious prosecution should not be summarily dismissed as pleaded facts could, if proved, satisfy the requirements; and the judge was correct to refuse the defendants' application to amend their plea of justification as the new material was not previously consented to and would prejudice the claimants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order of Eady J is affirmed; the TSA letter is not absolutely privileged.
  • The claim for malicious prosecution is not summarily dismissed and may proceed.