McLaughlin & Ors v Newall

McLaughlin & Ors v Newall

The Defendant cannot establish that the Claimants are contractually barred from pursuing their defamation action because the alleged settlement agreement required performance of all obligations, including an agreed apology, as conditions precedent. No apology was agreed or provided, and the structure of the correspondence shows the Claimants' obligation not to sue did not arise until all conditions were fulfilled. The Defendant's alternative plea of justification does not, at this stage, preclude him from running both defences, but the contractual bar defence is unsustainable and must be struck out.

Parties
Claimant: Mark McLaughlin; Claimant: Greg Martin; Claimant: Jim Davies; Defendant: Jeff Newall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence
Outcome
Application granted; parts of Defence struck out
Legal Topics
Compromise Agreements, Conditions Precedent, Striking Out Pleadings, Settlement Negotiations, Plea of Justification
Defamation Contract Law Civil Procedure Compromise Agreements Conditions Precedent Striking Out Pleadings Settlement Negotiations Plea of Justification

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark McLaughlin

Claimant

Greg Martin

Claimant

Jim Davies

Claimant

Jeff Newall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding compromise agreement was concluded between the parties precluding the defamation claim
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an agreed apology rendered the settlement incomplete or unenforceable
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's plea of justification is inconsistent with the alleged settlement and apology obligation

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant cannot establish that the Claimants are contractually barred from pursuing their defamation action because the alleged settlement agreement required performance of all obligations, including an agreed apology, as conditions precedent. No apology was agreed or provided, and the structure of the correspondence shows the Claimants' obligation not to sue did not arise until all conditions were fulfilled. The Defendant's alternative plea of justification does not, at this stage, preclude him from running both defences, but the contractual bar defence is unsustainable and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application granted; parts of Defence struck out

Orders

  • Those parts of the Defence which advance the case that the claim is contractually barred are struck out pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2)a