Baker v Hemming

Baker v Hemming

Claimant's pleadings failed to comply with court orders and practice directions regarding limitation, malice, truth, and meaning; defence to counterclaim discloses no reasonable grounds and is struck out; Defendant entitled to summary judgment on counterclaim (except innuendo meaning); Claimant's defamation claim not struck out in entirety but unless order made for proper particulars; Claimant's application dismissed as meritless.

Parties
Claimant: Esther Ruth Baker; Defendant: John Alexander Melvin Hemming
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Ruling on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Defendant's application allowed in part; summary judgment on counterclaim (except innuendo meaning); Claimant's application dismissed; unless order made for Claimant's claim.
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Limitation, Qualified Privilege, Truth Defence, Serious Harm, Malice, Data Protection
Defamation Civil Procedure Strike Out Summary Judgment Limitation Qualified Privilege Truth Defence Serious Harm +2 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 9 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esther Ruth Baker

Claimant

John Alexander Melvin Hemming

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Ruling on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's pleadings comply with court orders and practice directions
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's defence to the counterclaim discloses reasonable grounds
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's publications are protected by qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant's pleadings failed to comply with court orders and practice directions regarding limitation, malice, truth, and meaning; defence to counterclaim discloses no reasonable grounds and is struck out; Defendant entitled to summary judgment on counterclaim (except innuendo meaning); Claimant's defamation claim not struck out in entirety but unless order made for proper particulars; Claimant's application dismissed as meritless.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application allowed in part; summary judgment on counterclaim (except innuendo meaning); Claimant's application dismissed; unless order made for Claimant's claim.

Orders

  • Claimant's reliance on s.28 Limitation Act 1980 struck out
  • Claimant's plea of malice struck out