Mahfouz & Anor v Brisard & Anor [2006] EWHC 1191 (QB) (25 May 2006)

Mahfouz & Anor v Brisard & Anor [2006] EWHC 1191 (QB) (25 May 2006)

There is no defence with a realistic prospect of success to the claimants' libel claims, publication within the jurisdiction is established, and there is no reason for a full trial. The seriousness of the libel and the entitlement to vindication justify the statutory maximum damages and injunctive relief, but a declaration of falsity is not appropriate given the limited connection to the jurisdiction and the guidance in Jameel.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1191
Parties
Claimant: Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz; Claimant: Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz; Defendant: Jean-Charles Brisard; Defendant: Guillaume Dasquie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Summary Disposal Application Under Defamation Act 1996, Sections 8 10
Outcome
Summary judgment for the claimants against both defendants. Damages awarded. Injunction granted. No declaration of falsity.
Legal Topics
Libel, Summary Disposal, Jurisdiction, Damages, Injunctions
Defamation Media Law Libel Summary Disposal Jurisdiction Damages Injunctions

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz

Claimant

Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz

Claimant

Jean-Charles Brisard

Defendant

Guillaume Dasquie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Summary Disposal Application Under Defamation Act 1996, Sections 8 10

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to summary disposal of their libel claim under sections 8-10 of the Defamation Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether there is any defence with a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether there is any reason the claim should go to trial

Ratio Decidendi

There is no defence with a realistic prospect of success to the claimants' libel claims, publication within the jurisdiction is established, and there is no reason for a full trial. The seriousness of the libel and the entitlement to vindication justify the statutory maximum damages and injunctive relief, but a declaration of falsity is not appropriate given the limited connection to the jurisdiction and the guidance in Jameel.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the claimants against both defendants. Damages awarded. Injunction granted. No declaration of falsity.

Orders

  • Each claimant awarded £10,000 in damages against the first defendant
  • Order restraining the first defendant from publishing or further publishing the libels or similar words