Cambridge v Makin [2011] EWHC 12 (QB) (12 January 2011)

Cambridge v Makin [2011] EWHC 12 (QB) (12 January 2011)

The defendant failed to prove that the claimant abused her position as a director by acting on a conflict of interest or that she personally benefited from the licensing of NRPSI data to CINTRA. The evidence did not establish that the claimant had a private interest in CINTRA at the relevant time or that she failed to declare any such interest. The defence of truth failed. The defence of qualified privilege also failed as the publication was not made on a privileged occasion or was defeated by malice.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 12 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Jan Cambridge; Defendant: Guillermo Makin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Libel / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Directors' Duties, Conflict of Interest, Data Protection
Defamation Company Law Libel Qualified Privilege Directors' Duties Conflict of Interest Data Protection

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Cambridge

Claimant

Guillermo Makin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's statements about the claimant were substantially true
  2. 2 Whether the publication was protected by qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the claimant abused her position as a director by acting on a conflict of interest

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove that the claimant abused her position as a director by acting on a conflict of interest or that she personally benefited from the licensing of NRPSI data to CINTRA. The evidence did not establish that the claimant had a private interest in CINTRA at the relevant time or that she failed to declare any such interest. The defence of truth failed. The defence of qualified privilege also failed as the publication was not made on a privileged occasion or was defeated by malice.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • The defendant is to pay damages to the claimant.
  • The defendant is restrained from further publishing the defamatory allegations.