Smith v Baker (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 2776 (QB) (20 October 2020)

Smith v Baker (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 2776 (QB) (20 October 2020)

The defence and counterclaim are defective and do not comply with Practice Direction 53B and CPR requirements, but do not amount to an abuse of process or res judicata (save for specific paragraphs). The application to strike out or for summary judgment is dismissed except for certain paragraphs, and the defendant is required to amend her defence and counterclaim to comply with the rules.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2776 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Samuel Collingwood Smith; Defendant: Esther Ruth Baker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation and Harassment) / Application to Strike Out Defence and Counterclaim and for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed except for specified paragraphs; defendant required to amend defence and counterclaim.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Pleading Requirements, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Practice Direction 53 B, Henderson V Henderson Principle
Defamation Harassment Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Pleading Requirements Abuse of Process Res Judicata +2 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Collingwood Smith

Claimant

Esther Ruth Baker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation and Harassment) / Application to Strike Out Defence and Counterclaim and for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence and counterclaim should be struck out as an abuse of process or for non-compliance with pleading rules
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted on the claim or counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether the counterclaim is barred by res judicata or the Henderson v Henderson principle

Ratio Decidendi

The defence and counterclaim are defective and do not comply with Practice Direction 53B and CPR requirements, but do not amount to an abuse of process or res judicata (save for specific paragraphs). The application to strike out or for summary judgment is dismissed except for certain paragraphs, and the defendant is required to amend her defence and counterclaim to comply with the rules.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed except for specified paragraphs; defendant required to amend defence and counterclaim.

Orders

  • Paragraph 14 of the defence and paragraphs 41, 52(vii), 64 and 65 of the counterclaim are struck out.
  • Defendant to amend defence and counterclaim to comply with rules.