Pell v Express Newspapers [2009] EWHC 118 (QB) (27 January 2009)

Pell v Express Newspapers [2009] EWHC 118 (QB) (27 January 2009)

The claimant, having elected to pursue alternative remedies in the Court of Appeal and expressly abandoned any claim in fraud, is now precluded from pursuing a claim in fraud or deceit against the defendant. The amendments to plead fraud and claim further damages are not properly arguable, particularly regarding the redactions to emails and the recovery of costs incurred in prior applications and appeals. The defendant's reliance on journalistic source protection was not shown to be dishonest or improper. The proceedings are stayed as an abuse of process and for election of remedies.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 118
Parties
Claimant: Benjamin Pell; Defendant: Express Newspapers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application (fraud/deceit, Amendment, Strike Out, Stay) / High Court Judgment on Applications to Amend, Strike Out, Stay, or Summarily Dismiss Claim
Outcome
Claim stayed; permission to amend refused; claim summarily dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Abuse of Process, Amendment of Pleadings, Journalistic Source Protection, Exemplary Damages, Aggravated Damages, Costs Orders, Settlement, Vicarious Liability
Civil Procedure Media Law Defamation Costs Fraudulent Misrepresentation Deceit Abuse of Process Amendment of Pleadings +6 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Pell

Claimant

Express Newspapers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application (fraud/deceit, Amendment, Strike Out, Stay) / High Court Judgment on Applications to Amend, Strike Out, Stay, or Summarily Dismiss Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should have permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to allege fraud/deceit and claim further damages
  2. 2 Whether the amended claim should be struck out, stayed, or summarily dismissed as an abuse of process or for lack of real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to recover costs incurred in previous applications and appeals as damages for deceit

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant, having elected to pursue alternative remedies in the Court of Appeal and expressly abandoned any claim in fraud, is now precluded from pursuing a claim in fraud or deceit against the defendant. The amendments to plead fraud and claim further damages are not properly arguable, particularly regarding the redactions to emails and the recovery of costs incurred in prior applications and appeals. The defendant's reliance on journalistic source protection was not shown to be dishonest or improper. The proceedings are stayed as an abuse of process and for election of remedies.

Court Disposition

Claim stayed; permission to amend refused; claim summarily dismissed in part

Orders

  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim to allege fraud and claim further damages refused
  • Claim to recover costs of prior applications and appeals dismissed as abuse of process