Smith v Baker [2021] EWHC 348 (QB) (18 February 2021)

Smith v Baker [2021] EWHC 348 (QB) (18 February 2021)

The amended defence and counterclaim remained significantly non-compliant with the CPR and prior judicial guidance. The defences of truth, qualified privilege, and public interest were inadequately pleaded and had no real prospect of success. The counterclaim, while defective in parts, was not so fundamentally...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 348 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Samuel Collingwood Smith; Defendant: Esther Ruth Baker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Harassment / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Summary Judgment on Amended Defence and Counterclaim
Outcome
Defence struck out except as to serious harm and meaning; specified paragraphs of counterclaim struck out; counterclaim otherwise allowed to proceed.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Pleadings Requirements, Serious Harm Threshold, Qualified Privilege, Public Interest Defence, Truth Defence, Harassment Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997
Defamation Harassment Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Pleadings Requirements Serious Harm Threshold Qualified Privilege +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Collingwood Smith

Claimant

Esther Ruth Baker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Harassment / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Summary Judgment on Amended Defence and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended defence and counterclaim comply with the Civil Procedure Rules and prior judicial guidance
  2. 2 Whether the defences of truth, qualified privilege, and public interest are properly pleaded
  3. 3 Whether the counterclaim is so defective as to amount to an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The amended defence and counterclaim remained significantly non-compliant with the CPR and prior judicial guidance. The defences of truth, qualified privilege, and public interest were inadequately pleaded and had no real prospect of success. The counterclaim, while defective in parts, was not so fundamentally flawed as to warrant total strike out. The defendant is permitted to contest serious harm and meaning, but the majority of her defence and specific paragraphs of her counterclaim are struck out.

Court Disposition

Defence struck out except as to serious harm and meaning; specified paragraphs of counterclaim struck out; counterclaim otherwise allowed to proceed.

Orders

  • Defendant's amended defence struck out except for issues of serious harm and meaning in respect of the publications.
  • Specified paragraphs of the amended counterclaim struck out as identified in the judgment.