Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) (05 November 2019)

Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) (05 November 2019)

The Claimant's pleadings failed to comply with court orders and procedural rules regarding limitation, meaning, malice, and particulars of truth. The Claimant's denial of the meanings of the Tweet and her defence to the counterclaim (except as to innuendo meaning) disclosed no reasonable grounds and had no real...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2950
Parties
Claimant: Esther Ruth Baker; Defendant: John Alexander Melvin Hemming
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim and Counterclaim / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Defendant's application to strike out and for summary judgment on the counterclaim granted (except as to innuendo meaning); Claimant given a final opportunity to amend reply to defence of truth, failing which claim will be struck out.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Limitation Period, Qualified Privilege, Truth Defence, Serious Harm, Pleading Requirements
Defamation Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Limitation Period Qualified Privilege Truth Defence Serious Harm +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esther Ruth Baker

Claimant

John Alexander Melvin Hemming

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Claim and Counterclaim / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties' statements of case should be struck out for non-compliance with court orders and procedural rules
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted on the claim and/or counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether the limitation period bars the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's pleadings failed to comply with court orders and procedural rules regarding limitation, meaning, malice, and particulars of truth. The Claimant's denial of the meanings of the Tweet and her defence to the counterclaim (except as to innuendo meaning) disclosed no reasonable grounds and had no real prospect of success. The Tweet was defamatory of the Defendant and caused serious harm. The Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the counterclaim (except as to innuendo meaning). The Claimant is given a final opportunity to remedy deficiencies in her reply to the defence of truth regarding her claim, failing which her claim will be struck out.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to strike out and for summary judgment on the counterclaim granted (except as to innuendo meaning); Claimant given a final opportunity to amend reply to defence of truth, failing which claim will be struck out.

Orders

  • Claimant's denial of the natural and ordinary meaning of the Tweet struck out.
  • Claimant's plea of malice struck out.