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 an appeal and expressly abandoned any claim in fraud, is precluded from now pursuing a claim in fraud or deceit. The application to amend the particulars of claim to include allegations regarding the email redactions and to recover costs incurred in previous applications and appeals is refused as unarguable or an abuse of process. The only arguable aspect relates to the redactions to the Orange telephone bill, but even this is stayed as any damages would be offset by existing costs orders. The proceedings are stayed as an abuse of process and due to the claimant's election to pursue an alternative remedy.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 118 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Benjamin Pell; Defendant: Express Newspapers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications: Permission to Amend, Strike Out, Summary Judgment, or Stay
Outcome
Claimant's application to amend refused in substantial part; proceedings stayed as an abuse of process and due to election; only limited aspect regarding telephone bill redactions is arguable but stayed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Slander, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Abuse of Process, Costs Orders, Confidential Sources, Exemplary Damages, Aggravated Damages, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings
Media Law Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Slander Fraudulent Misrepresentation Abuse of Process Costs Orders +5 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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Pell

Claimant

Express Newspapers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications: Permission to Amend, Strike Out, Summary Judgment, or Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend the particulars of claim to allege fraud and seek exemplary damages
  2. 2 Whether the amended claim should be struck out, stayed, or summarily dismissed
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to recover costs incurred in previous applications and appeals

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant, having elected to pursue an appeal and expressly abandoned any claim in fraud, is precluded from now pursuing a claim in fraud or deceit. The application to amend the particulars of claim to include allegations regarding the email redactions and to recover costs incurred in previous applications and appeals is refused as unarguable or an abuse of process. The only arguable aspect relates to the redactions to the Orange telephone bill, but even this is stayed as any damages would be offset by existing costs orders. The proceedings are stayed as an abuse of process and due to the claimant's election to pursue an alternative remedy.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to amend refused in substantial part; proceedings stayed as an abuse of process and due to election; only limited aspect regarding telephone bill redactions is arguable but stayed.

Orders

  • Permission to amend particulars of claim refused except for limited aspect regarding telephone bill redactions
  • Claim for costs of previous applications and appeals struck out as unarguable and abuse of process