Hays Plc v Hartley

Hays Plc v Hartley

The pursuit of the action against the Defendant after the Claimant had achieved vindication through the Public Statement and settlement with the Employees was an abuse of process, as there was nothing of value left for the Claimant to achieve. Any damages would be modest, likely irrecoverable, and the costs and demands on court resources would be disproportionate. The continuation of the action also constituted an unjustified interference with the Defendant’s Article 10 rights. The action was therefore struck out.

Parties
Claimant: Hays Plc; Defendant: Jonathan Hartley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Ruling on Applications to Strike Out Claim and Defence of Qualified Privilege
Outcome
Claim struck out as an abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Qualified Privilege, Freedom of Expression, Damages, Vindication, Collateral Purpose, Reynolds Privilege
Defamation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Qualified Privilege Freedom of Expression Damages Vindication Collateral Purpose +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hays Plc

Claimant

Jonathan Hartley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Ruling on Applications to Strike Out Claim and Defence of Qualified Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the Defendant constitutes a real and substantial tort after settlement with the Employees
  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)

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuit of the action against the Defendant after the Claimant had achieved vindication through the Public Statement and settlement with the Employees was an abuse of process, as there was nothing of value left for the Claimant to achieve. Any damages would be modest, likely irrecoverable, and the costs and demands on court resources would be disproportionate. The continuation of the action also constituted an unjustified interference with the Defendant’s Article 10 rights. The action was therefore struck out.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process

Orders

  • The action is struck out
  • No adverse reflection on the Claimant or its advisers