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, including failure to provide particulars of disability, malice, and truth, and failure to plead the meaning of the Tweet in response to the counterclaim. The Claimant's denials were bare and unsupported. The Defendant established that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2950 (QB)
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
Defence to counterclaim struck out and summary judgment granted for Defendant on counterclaim (except innuendo meaning); unless order made for Claimant to remedy deficiencies in reply to defence of truth, failing which claim to be struck out.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Limitation Period, Qualified Privilege, Truth Defence, Serious Harm Requirement, Pleading Requirements
Defamation Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Limitation Period Qualified Privilege Truth Defence Serious Harm Requirement +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 7 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 and/or failure to disclose reasonable grounds for claim or defence
  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, including failure to provide particulars of disability, malice, and truth, and failure to plead the meaning of the Tweet in response to the counterclaim. The Claimant's denials were bare and unsupported. The Defendant established that the Tweet was defamatory of him, referred to him, and caused serious harm. The Claimant had no real prospect of defending the counterclaim on the natural and ordinary meaning. The defence to the counterclaim was struck out and summary judgment granted for the Defendant, save for the innuendo meaning. The Claimant was given a final opportunity to remedy deficiencies in her reply...

Court Disposition

Defence to counterclaim struck out and summary judgment granted for Defendant on counterclaim (except innuendo meaning); unless order made for Claimant to remedy deficiencies in reply to defence of truth, failing which claim to be struck out.

Orders

  • Claimant's reliance on s.28 Limitation Act 1980 struck out
  • Claimant's bare denial of Tweet's meaning struck out