Desmond v Foreman & Ors

Desmond v Foreman & Ors

The words complained of are not capable of bearing defamatory meanings at Chase Level 1 as alleged by the Claimant, but are capable of bearing defamatory meanings at Chase Level 2 or 3 as contended by the Defendants; references to the 2001 incident may constitute unjustifiable interference with Article 8 and Data Protection Act rights, defeating qualified privilege in respect of those references; summary judgment is refused as the Claimant has a real prospect of success on some claims.

Parties
Claimant: Vincent Desmond; Defendant: John Foreman; Defendant: Sue Shenton; Defendant: Stella Elliott; Defendant: Cheshire West and Cheshire Council; Defendant: Cheshire East Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Defendants' application for summary judgment refused; Claimant's applications to strike out defence of justification, amend Particulars of Claim, and disapply limitation period adjourned; application for anonymity refused.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Limitation Periods, Article 8 ECHR, Data Protection Principles, Safeguarding Children, Employment Law
Defamation Human Rights Data Protection Qualified Privilege Limitation Periods Article 8 ECHR Data Protection Principles Safeguarding Children +1 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Desmond

Claimant

John Foreman

Defendant

Sue Shenton

Defendant

Stella Elliott

Defendant

Cheshire West and Cheshire Council

Defendant

Cheshire East Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing defamatory meanings attributed by the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether references to the 2001 incident constituted unjustifiable interference with Article 8 and Data Protection Act rights
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants' actions were protected by qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are not capable of bearing defamatory meanings at Chase Level 1 as alleged by the Claimant, but are capable of bearing defamatory meanings at Chase Level 2 or 3 as contended by the Defendants; references to the 2001 incident may constitute unjustifiable interference with Article 8 and Data Protection Act rights, defeating qualified privilege in respect of those references; summary judgment is refused as the Claimant has a real prospect of success on some claims.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for summary judgment refused; Claimant's applications to strike out defence of justification, amend Particulars of Claim, and disapply limitation period adjourned; application for anonymity refused.

Orders

  • Summary judgment application refused
  • Application to strike out defence of justification adjourned