BHX v GRX & Anor [2021] EWHC 770 (QB) (29 March 2021)

BHX v GRX & Anor [2021] EWHC 770 (QB) (29 March 2021)

The claimant's pleadings failed to disclose reasonable causes of action for defamation, malicious falsehood, misuse of private information, and harassment. Most statements relied upon were either protected by absolute privilege/immunity from suit or were not pleaded with sufficient particularity. The conduct alleged did not meet the threshold for actionable harassment or misuse of private information. The claims were struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or dismissed under CPR Part 24 as having no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 770 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: BHX; Defendant: GRX; Defendant: GRU
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (media and Communications) / Strike Out/summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Claim struck out and dismissed
Legal Topics
Immunity From Suit, Serious Harm Requirement, Misuse of Private Information, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Defamation Act 2013, Family Proceedings Confidentiality
Defamation Privacy Harassment Malicious Falsehood Immunity From Suit Serious Harm Requirement Misuse of Private Information Protection From Harassment Act 1997 +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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BHX

Claimant

GRX

Defendant

GRU

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (media and Communications) / Strike Out/summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleadings disclose reasonable causes of action for defamation, malicious falsehood, misuse of private information, and harassment; whether any claims are barred by immunity from suit; whether the pleaded words meet the requirements for actionable defamation or malicious falsehood; whether the conduct alleged amounts to actionable harassment; whether the claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information disclosed

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's pleadings failed to disclose reasonable causes of action for defamation, malicious falsehood, misuse of private information, and harassment. Most statements relied upon were either protected by absolute privilege/immunity from suit or were not pleaded with sufficient particularity. The conduct alleged did not meet the threshold for actionable harassment or misuse of private information. The claims were struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or dismissed under CPR Part 24 as having no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out and dismissed

Orders

  • All claims by the claimant are struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or dismissed under CPR Part 24.
  • Reporting restrictions and anonymisation of the parties continue to apply.