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 alleged by the claimant; the third and fourth articles are capable of bearing defamatory meanings and should not be struck out; the Fourth Defendant was not responsible for publication and should be removed; the claim for exemplary damages is not properly pleaded and should be struck out.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1629 (QB)
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 Claim (defamation) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment on Meanings; Application to Remove Fourth Defendant; Application to Strike Exemplary Damages
Outcome
Particulars of claim struck out as to first and second articles; claim proceeds as to third and fourth articles; Fourth Defendant removed; claim for exemplary damages struck out.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Summary Judgment, Striking Out Pleadings, Exemplary Damages, Responsibility for Publication
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Defamatory Statements 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 3 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 Claim (defamation) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment on Meanings; Application to Remove Fourth Defendant; Application to Strike Exemplary Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted for the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the Fourth Defendant is a proper party to the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The first and second articles, when read as a whole, are not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged by the claimant; the third and fourth articles are capable of bearing defamatory meanings and should not be struck out; the Fourth Defendant was not responsible for publication and should be removed; the claim for exemplary damages is not properly pleaded and should be struck out.

Court Disposition

Particulars of claim struck out as to first and second articles; claim proceeds as to third and fourth articles; Fourth Defendant removed; claim for exemplary damages struck out.

Orders

  • First and second articles struck out from particulars of claim
  • Third and fourth articles to proceed to trial