Wright v Caan

Wright v Caan

The words complained of were not capable of bearing the defamatory or malicious falsehood meanings pleaded, either as natural and ordinary meaning or as innuendo. The pleadings did not disclose a likelihood of pecuniary damage as required by s3(1) Defamation Act 1952. Leave to amend the Particulars of Claim was refused in respect of both defamation and malicious falsehood claims.

Parties
Claimant: Sharon Wright; Defendant: James Caan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings and Strike Out Claims
Outcome
Leave to amend refused; claims in defamation and malicious falsehood struck out as not sustainable.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Pleadings Amendment, Meaning of Words, Malice, Pecuniary Damage
Defamation Tort Law Libel Malicious Falsehood Pleadings Amendment Meaning of Words Malice Pecuniary Damage

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Wright

Claimant

James Caan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation 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 defamatory or malicious falsehood meanings pleaded
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be granted leave to amend her Particulars of Claim
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings disclose a likelihood of pecuniary damage under s3(1) Defamation Act 1952

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of were not capable of bearing the defamatory or malicious falsehood meanings pleaded, either as natural and ordinary meaning or as innuendo. The pleadings did not disclose a likelihood of pecuniary damage as required by s3(1) Defamation Act 1952. Leave to amend the Particulars of Claim was refused in respect of both defamation and malicious falsehood claims.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend refused; claims in defamation and malicious falsehood struck out as not sustainable.

Orders

  • Refused permission to amend Particulars of Claim for defamation and malicious falsehood.
  • Struck out claims based on publication to journalist and website statement.