Wright v Gregson & Ors [2010] EWHC 1629 (QB) (01 July 2010)

Wright v Gregson & Ors [2010] EWHC 1629 (QB) (01 July 2010)

The first and second articles, when read as a whole, are not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded by the claimant and should be struck out. The third and fourth articles are capable of bearing defamatory meanings and should proceed to trial. The claim against the Fourth Defendant is struck out for lack of responsibility for publication. The claim for exemplary damages is struck out for lack of pleading and evidential basis.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1629
Parties
Claimant: Kevin John Wright; Defendant: Eleanor Gregson; Defendant: Marc Astley; Defendant: Express & Echo News & Media Limited; Defendant: Northcliffe Media Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim and for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Partial strike out and summary judgment granted; claim proceeds on third and fourth articles only; Fourth Defendant removed; exemplary damages claim struck out.
Legal Topics
Libel, Defamatory Meaning, Summary Judgment, Striking Out Pleadings, Exemplary Damages, Responsibility for Publication
Media Law Defamation Libel Defamatory Meaning Summary Judgment Striking Out Pleadings Exemplary Damages Responsibility for Publication

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin John Wright

Claimant

Eleanor Gregson

Defendant

Marc Astley

Defendant

Express & Echo News & Media Limited

Defendant

Northcliffe Media Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim and for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claim against the Fourth Defendant should be struck out for lack of responsibility for publication
  3. 3 Whether the claim for exemplary damages is sustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The first and second articles, when read as a whole, are not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded by the claimant and should be struck out. The third and fourth articles are capable of bearing defamatory meanings and should proceed to trial. The claim against the Fourth Defendant is struck out for lack of responsibility for publication. The claim for exemplary damages is struck out for lack of pleading and evidential basis.

Court Disposition

Partial strike out and summary judgment granted; claim proceeds on third and fourth articles only; Fourth Defendant removed; exemplary damages claim struck out.

Orders

  • First and second articles struck out as incapable of bearing defamatory meaning pleaded
  • Claim against Northcliffe Media Limited (Fourth Defendant) struck out