Wright v Caan [2011] EWHC 1978 (QB) (27 July 2011)

Wright v Caan [2011] EWHC 1978 (QB) (27 July 2011)

The words complained of are not capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory or malicious falsehood meanings, whether natural, ordinary, or innuendo. The pleadings lack proper particulars of falsity, malice, and likelihood of pecuniary damage. Leave to amend is refused where amendments have no prospect of success.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1978
Parties
Claimant: Sharon Wright; Defendant: James Caan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Libel and Malicious Falsehood / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings and Strike Out Claims
Outcome
Leave to amend the Particulars of Claim is refused in respect of the defamation and malicious falsehood claims; claims are struck out where amendments have no prospect of success.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Pleadings, Amendment of Particulars of Claim, Defamatory Meaning, Innuendo, Malice, Pecuniary Damage
Defamation Malicious Falsehood Libel Pleadings Amendment of Particulars of Claim Defamatory Meaning Innuendo Malice +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Wright

Claimant

James Caan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Malicious Falsehood / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings and Strike Out Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory or malicious falsehood meanings
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings are properly particularised
  3. 3 Whether the claim in malicious falsehood is sustainable absent pleaded likelihood of pecuniary damage

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are not capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory or malicious falsehood meanings, whether natural, ordinary, or innuendo. The pleadings lack proper particulars of falsity, malice, and likelihood of pecuniary damage. Leave to amend is refused where amendments have no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the Particulars of Claim is refused in respect of the defamation and malicious falsehood claims; claims are struck out where amendments have no prospect of success.

Orders

  • Permission to amend pleadings refused for defamation and malicious falsehood claims based on publication to journalist and website statement.
  • Claims in libel and malicious falsehood struck out where amendments have no prospect of success.