Wallis & Anor v Meredith [2011] EWHC 75 (QB) (28 January 2011)

Wallis & Anor v Meredith [2011] EWHC 75 (QB) (28 January 2011)

The claim was struck out because the only publication relied upon was to the claimants' solicitor, which does not constitute a real and substantial tort in defamation. There was no evidence of publication to any third party, and references to further publications were speculative and unsupported. The proceedings were an abuse of process and continuation would not serve a legitimate purpose.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 75
Parties
Claimant: Phillip Wallis; Claimant: GHP Securities Limited; Defendant: Justin Meredith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim (libel) / Application to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process
Outcome
Claim dismissed as an abuse of process; paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of the Particulars of Claim struck out.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Real and Substantial Tort, Qualified Privilege, Pre Action Disclosure, Aggravated Damages
Defamation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Real and Substantial Tort Qualified Privilege Pre Action Disclosure Aggravated Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Wallis

Claimant

GHP Securities Limited

Claimant

Justin Meredith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Claim (libel) / Application to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses a real and substantial tort justifying continuation of proceedings for defamation where the only publication is to the claimants' solicitor
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of the Particulars of Claim, referring to unidentified further publications, are permissible
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because the only publication relied upon was to the claimants' solicitor, which does not constitute a real and substantial tort in defamation. There was no evidence of publication to any third party, and references to further publications were speculative and unsupported. The proceedings were an abuse of process and continuation would not serve a legitimate purpose.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as an abuse of process; paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of the Particulars of Claim struck out.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of the Particulars of Claim struck out