Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Ltd v. Johnson Fry Asset Managers Plc [2000] EWHC QB 110 (19th April, 2000)

Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Ltd v. Johnson Fry Asset Managers Plc [2000] EWHC QB 110 (19th April, 2000)

The advertisements were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning as pleaded or any meaning defamatory of Jupiter; the claim in malicious falsehood had no real prospect of success as the advertisements did not overstep permissible limits of denigration; and the compromise agreement reached between the parties was binding and honored, extinguishing all claims.

Citation
[2000] EWHC QB 110
Parties
Claimant: Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited; Defendant: Johnson Fry Asset Managers Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Strike Out Application
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendant on all heads of claim; claims struck out.
Legal Topics
Comparative Advertising, Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Compromise Agreement
Defamation Commercial Law Comparative Advertising Libel Malicious Falsehood Compromise Agreement

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Limited

Claimant

Johnson Fry Asset Managers Plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the advertisements are capable of bearing defamatory meanings pleaded or any meanings defamatory of Jupiter
  2. 2 Whether Jupiter's claim in malicious falsehood has any real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a binding compromise agreement was reached between Jupiter and Johnson Fry on 13th May 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The advertisements were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning as pleaded or any meaning defamatory of Jupiter; the claim in malicious falsehood had no real prospect of success as the advertisements did not overstep permissible limits of denigration; and the compromise agreement reached between the parties was binding and honored, extinguishing all claims.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendant on all heads of claim; claims struck out.

Orders

  • Claim in libel struck out
  • Claim in malicious falsehood struck out