Smith v Baker

Smith v Baker

The amended defence and counterclaim failed to cure the defects previously identified and did not comply with the rules on pleadings. The defendant had been given sufficient opportunity to amend and no further opportunity was warranted. The defences of truth, qualified privilege, and public interest were inadequately pleaded and had no real prospect of success. The counterclaim, while prolix and defective in parts, was not so fundamentally flawed as to amount to an abuse of process and was allowed to proceed subject to the striking out of specified paragraphs. The harassment claim was allowed to proceed except for insufficiently particularised allegations.

Parties
Claimant: Samuel Collingwood Smith; Defendant: Esther Ruth Baker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (renewed Application to Strike Out Amended Defence and Counterclaim, and for Summary Judgment)
Outcome
Amended defence struck out except for issues of serious harm and meaning; specified paragraphs of the counterclaim struck out; counterclaim and harassment claim allowed to proceed as amended; no summary judgment granted.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Pleadings, Serious Harm, Qualified Privilege, Public Interest Defence, Harassment Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997
Defamation Harassment Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Pleadings Serious Harm Qualified Privilege +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Collingwood Smith

Claimant

Esther Ruth Baker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (renewed Application to Strike Out Amended Defence and Counterclaim, and for Summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended defence and counterclaim should be struck out for non-compliance with pleading requirements
  2. 2 Whether the defendant should be permitted further opportunity to amend pleadings
  3. 3 Whether the defences of truth, qualified privilege, and public interest are properly pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The amended defence and counterclaim failed to cure the defects previously identified and did not comply with the rules on pleadings. The defendant had been given sufficient opportunity to amend and no further opportunity was warranted. The defences of truth, qualified privilege, and public interest were inadequately pleaded and had no real prospect of success. The counterclaim, while prolix and defective in parts, was not so fundamentally flawed as to amount to an abuse of process and was allowed to proceed subject to the striking out of specified paragraphs. The harassment claim was allowed to proceed except for insufficiently particularised allegations.

Court Disposition

Amended defence struck out except for issues of serious harm and meaning; specified paragraphs of the counterclaim struck out; counterclaim and harassment claim allowed to proceed as amended; no summary judgment granted.

Orders

  • Amended defence struck out save for issues of serious harm and meaning.
  • Specified paragraphs of the counterclaim struck out as detailed in the judgment.