Kim v Park & Ors

Kim v Park & Ors

The defence under section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 was struck out because the defendants failed to adduce any evidence to discharge their burden of proof. The E-commerce Regulations defence was not struck out as there remained live factual issues for trial. Costs of the adjournment and the successful strike out...

Source-derived case information.

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 (strike Out Defence and Costs)
Outcome
Strike out of section 1 Defamation Act 1996 defence; E-commerce Regulations defence remains; costs orders made as specified.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Burden of Proof, Defamation Act 1996, E Commerce Regulations, Costs Orders
Defamation Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Burden of Proof Defamation Act 1996 E Commerce Regulations Costs Orders

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 (strike Out Defence and Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence should be struck out for failure to adduce evidence
  2. 2 Whether section 1 Defamation Act 1996 defence can succeed without evidence
  3. 3 Whether E-commerce Regulations defence should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The defence under section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 was struck out because the defendants failed to adduce any evidence to discharge their burden of proof. The E-commerce Regulations defence was not struck out as there remained live factual issues for trial. Costs of the adjournment and the successful strike out application were awarded to the claimant, with other costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Strike out of section 1 Defamation Act 1996 defence; E-commerce Regulations defence remains; costs orders made as specified.

Orders

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