Richard Alan Parsons v Elizabeth Garnett & Ors

Richard Alan Parsons v Elizabeth Garnett & Ors

The claimant's particulars of claim are technically and factually sufficient to found liability for defamation and harassment. The pleadings are not 'unreal' or 'extravagant', and the defendants' denials, unsupported by a formal defence, do not displace the claimant's entitlement to default judgment. Serious harm and publication are adequately pleaded and inferable from the facts. The claimant is entitled to damages, a declaration, and injunctive relief.

Parties
Claimant: Richard Alan Parsons; Defendant: Elizabeth Garnett; Defendant: Allan Garnett; Defendant: Katie Armistead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Harassment / Default Judgment Application
Outcome
Default judgment for the claimant on liability for defamation and harassment against all defendants.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Serious Harm, Publication, Joint Liability, Summary Relief, Injunctive Relief
Defamation Harassment Civil Procedure Default Judgment Serious Harm Publication Joint Liability Summary Relief +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Alan Parsons

Claimant

Elizabeth Garnett

Defendant

Allan Garnett

Defendant

Katie Armistead

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Harassment / Default Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to default judgment for defamation and harassment against all defendants
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings sufficiently establish serious harm and publication
  3. 3 Whether injunctive and summary relief are appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's particulars of claim are technically and factually sufficient to found liability for defamation and harassment. The pleadings are not 'unreal' or 'extravagant', and the defendants' denials, unsupported by a formal defence, do not displace the claimant's entitlement to default judgment. Serious harm and publication are adequately pleaded and inferable from the facts. The claimant is entitled to damages, a declaration, and injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Default judgment for the claimant on liability for defamation and harassment against all defendants.

Orders

  • Damages of £2,000 against Ms Armistead for libel
  • Damages of £8,000 jointly and severally against Mr and Mrs Garnett for libel