Hawrami v Journalism Development Network Inc & Ors [2024] EWHC 389 (KB) (22 February 2024)

Hawrami v Journalism Development Network Inc & Ors [2024] EWHC 389 (KB) (22 February 2024)

The defence of qualified privilege under section 15 and Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 has no real prospect of success because the Article is not a fair and accurate report of the Excalibur Litigation and Judgment. The Article contains distortions and omissions, and the defendants cannot establish that the statutory requirements for qualified privilege are met. Summary judgment is therefore granted against the qualified privilege defence.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 389 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Dr Ashti Hawrami; Defendant: Journalism Development Network Inc.; Defendant: Daniel Balint-Kurti; Defendant: William Jordan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Summary Judgment Application by Claimant Against Defence of Qualified Privilege
Outcome
Summary judgment granted against the defence of qualified privilege under section 15 and Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 1996.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Fair and Accurate Report, Summary Judgment, Meaning in Defamation, Public Interest Defence
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Fair and Accurate Report Summary Judgment Meaning in Defamation Public Interest Defence

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Ashti Hawrami

Claimant

Journalism Development Network Inc.

Defendant

Daniel Balint-Kurti

Defendant

William Jordan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Summary Judgment Application by Claimant Against Defence of Qualified Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' defence of qualified privilege under section 15 and Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 has a real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the Article constitutes a fair and accurate report of proceedings in public before a court
  3. 3 Whether the Article intermingles extraneous material so as to lose qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of qualified privilege under section 15 and Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 has no real prospect of success because the Article is not a fair and accurate report of the Excalibur Litigation and Judgment. The Article contains distortions and omissions, and the defendants cannot establish that the statutory requirements for qualified privilege are met. Summary judgment is therefore granted against the qualified privilege defence.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted against the defence of qualified privilege under section 15 and Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 1996.

Orders

  • The defence of qualified privilege is struck out and will not proceed to trial.
  • The claim proceeds on the remaining issues and defences.