Valmoria & Anor v Hynes [2012] EWHC 193 (QB) (10 February 2012)

Valmoria & Anor v Hynes [2012] EWHC 193 (QB) (10 February 2012)

The defendant's articles, as understood by the ordinary reasonable reader, conveyed that the claimants were involved in a £15 million NVQ training fraud and defrauded thousands of students. The defendant's justification defence did not meet the sting of the libel, as there was no evidence or assertion that the claimants were parties to fraud or acted dishonestly. The defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. Summary judgment was therefore granted for the claimants for general (including aggravated, if appropriate) damages and a final injunction.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 193
Parties
Claimant: Mark Valmoria; Claimant: Joselina Barrameda; Defendant: George Hynes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment for the claimants.
Legal Topics
Libel, Online Publication, Summary Judgment, Damages, Injunction, Justification Defence
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Online Publication Summary Judgment Damages Injunction +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Valmoria

Claimant

Joselina Barrameda

Claimant

George Hynes

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published articles were defamatory of the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's plea of justification provided a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted for the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's articles, as understood by the ordinary reasonable reader, conveyed that the claimants were involved in a £15 million NVQ training fraud and defrauded thousands of students. The defendant's justification defence did not meet the sting of the libel, as there was no evidence or assertion that the claimants were parties to fraud or acted dishonestly. The defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. Summary judgment was therefore granted for the claimants for general (including aggravated, if appropriate) damages and a final injunction.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the claimants.

Orders

  • General (including aggravated, if appropriate) damages to be assessed by the Master
  • Final injunction restraining the defendant from further publishing allegations that the claimants were parties to fraud involving Precision Training or responsible for defrauding students