Joseph & Ors v Spiller & Anor [2009] EWHC 1152 (QB) (22 May 2009)

Joseph & Ors v Spiller & Anor [2009] EWHC 1152 (QB) (22 May 2009)

The re-engagement clause was unenforceable due to breaches of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003, specifically Regulation 14(2). Therefore, the Claimants' conduct in contracting directly did not amount to an actionable breach. The defence of justification could proceed only on a reduced basis, excluding reliance on breach of the re-engagement clause. The defences of fair comment and qualified privilege were struck out as the words were factual, not comment, and there was no public interest or duty to publish to the world at large.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1152 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Craig Joseph; Claimant: Jason Joseph; Claimant: Anthony Raymond; Defendant: Jason Spiller; Defendant: 1311 Events Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Defences
Outcome
Application to strike out defences allowed in part
Legal Topics
Justification in Defamation, Fair Comment, Qualified Privilege, Employment Agencies Regulations, Restrictive Covenants, Breach of Contract
Defamation Employment Law Contract Law Justification in Defamation Fair Comment Qualified Privilege Employment Agencies Regulations Restrictive Covenants +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Joseph

Claimant

Jason Joseph

Claimant

Anthony Raymond

Claimant

Jason Spiller

Defendant

1311 Events Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleaded defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the re-engagement clause was incorporated into the contract and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003 rendered the re-engagement clause unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The re-engagement clause was unenforceable due to breaches of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003, specifically Regulation 14(2). Therefore, the Claimants' conduct in contracting directly did not amount to an actionable breach. The defence of justification could proceed only on a reduced basis, excluding reliance on breach of the re-engagement clause. The defences of fair comment and qualified privilege were struck out as the words were factual, not comment, and there was no public interest or duty to publish to the world at large.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out defences allowed in part

Orders

  • Defences of fair comment and qualified privilege struck out
  • Defence of justification allowed to proceed on a reduced basis, excluding reliance on breach of the re-engagement clause