Kim v Park & Ors [2013] EWHC 3568 (QB) (25 April 2013)

Kim v Park & Ors [2013] EWHC 3568 (QB) (25 April 2013)

The defence under section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 is struck out because the defendants have adduced no evidence to discharge the burden of proof required by statute. The defence under Regulation 19 of the E-commerce Regulations is not struck out as there remain live factual issues for trial.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3568 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Ing Soo Kim; Defendant: Jueng Guen Park; Defendant: Sung Jung Choi; Defendant: Korean Post and hannantv.com (trading names of Jueng Guen Park)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Defence and Costs Directions
Outcome
Partial strike out of defence; costs orders made; trial to proceed on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Burden of Proof, Section 1 Defamation Act 1996, E Commerce Regulations 2002, Case Management, Costs
Defamation Civil Procedure Strike Out Application Burden of Proof Section 1 Defamation Act 1996 E Commerce Regulations 2002 Case Management Costs

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ing Soo Kim

Claimant

Jueng Guen Park

Defendant

Sung Jung Choi

Defendant

Korean Post and hannantv.com (trading names of Jueng Guen Park)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Defence and Costs Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence to defamation under section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 should be struck out for lack of evidence
  2. 2 Whether the defence under Regulation 19 of the E-commerce Regulations should be struck out
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order following adjournment and strike-out applications

Ratio Decidendi

The defence under section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 is struck out because the defendants have adduced no evidence to discharge the burden of proof required by statute. The defence under Regulation 19 of the E-commerce Regulations is not struck out as there remain live factual issues for trial.

Court Disposition

Partial strike out of defence; costs orders made; trial to proceed on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Paragraph 31 of the defence (section 1 Defamation Act 1996) is struck out.
  • Paragraph 32 of the defence (E-commerce Regulations) is not struck out.