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, in their natural and ordinary meaning, conveyed that the Claimants were involved in a large-scale fraud, and the Defendant's pleaded case and evidence did not meet or justify the sting of the libel. The Defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, so summary judgment was appropriate.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 193 (QB)
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, Double Actionability, Meaning of Defamatory Words
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Online Publication Summary Judgment Damages Injunction +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 2 Authorities cited 4 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 words published by the Defendant were defamatory of the Claimants
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant had a viable defence of justification
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the Claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's articles, in their natural and ordinary meaning, conveyed that the Claimants were involved in a large-scale fraud, and the Defendant's pleaded case and evidence did not meet or justify the sting of the libel. The Defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, so summary judgment was appropriate.

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