Cambridge v Makin

Cambridge v Makin

The defendant failed to prove the truth of the allegation that the claimant abused her position as a director of NRPSI by acting on a conflict of interest or personally benefiting from the grant of a licence to CINTRA. The evidence did not establish that the claimant had a relevant interest in CINTRA at the material time or that she knew of or stood to benefit from CINTRA’s tender. The defence of justification failed. The defence of qualified privilege also failed except as to publication to CIOL members entitled to vote at the AGM, and even as to them, the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth and without honest belief, amounting to malice. The claimant was entitled to...

Parties
Claimant: Jan Cambridge; Defendant: Guillermo Makin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant. Defences of justification and qualified privilege dismissed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Conflict of Interest, Directors' Duties, Damages
Defamation Company Law Libel Qualified Privilege Conflict of Interest Directors' Duties Damages

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Cambridge

Claimant

Guillermo Makin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's statements about the claimant constituted libel
  2. 2 Whether the defence of justification (truth) was established
  3. 3 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applied to the publications

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove the truth of the allegation that the claimant abused her position as a director of NRPSI by acting on a conflict of interest or personally benefiting from the grant of a licence to CINTRA. The evidence did not establish that the claimant had a relevant interest in CINTRA at the material time or that she knew of or stood to benefit from CINTRA’s tender. The defence of justification failed. The defence of qualified privilege also failed except as to publication to CIOL members entitled to vote at the AGM, and even as to them, the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth and without honest belief, amounting to malice. The claimant was entitled to...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant. Defences of justification and qualified privilege dismissed.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the claimant general damages in the sum of £30,000, taking into account compensation already received from GMB.
  • No special damages awarded.