Hays Plc v Hartley [2010] EWHC 1068 (QB) (17 May 2010)

Hays Plc v Hartley [2010] EWHC 1068 (QB) (17 May 2010)

The pursuit of the action against the Defendant after the Settlement Agreement and Public Statement was an abuse of process because it could achieve nothing of value for the Claimant; any damages would be modest and irrecoverable, and the vindication sought had already been obtained. The continuation of the action was disproportionate and not a legitimate use of court resources.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1068 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Hays Plc; Defendant: Jonathan Hartley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Applications to Strike Out Defence and to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process; Pre Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out as an abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Qualified Privilege, Freedom of Expression, Corporate Reputation, Damages in Defamation, Reynolds Privilege
Defamation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Qualified Privilege Freedom of Expression Corporate Reputation Damages in Defamation Reynolds Privilege

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hays Plc

Claimant

Jonathan Hartley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Applications to Strike Out Defence and to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process; Pre Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the Defendant constitutes a real and substantial tort after the Settlement Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the continuation of the action is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant can rely on qualified privilege (including Reynolds privilege) for his publication to the Journalist

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuit of the action against the Defendant after the Settlement Agreement and Public Statement was an abuse of process because it could achieve nothing of value for the Claimant; any damages would be modest and irrecoverable, and the vindication sought had already been obtained. The continuation of the action was disproportionate and not a legitimate use of court resources.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process

Orders

  • Action struck out
  • No criticism of Claimant or advisers; consequence of success in proceedings against Employees