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 as an abuse of process because the only publication relied upon was to the claimants' solicitor, which does not constitute a real and substantial tort. There was no evidence of publication to any third party, and paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of the Particulars of Claim, which implied wider publication, were speculative and unsupported. The court held that no tangible or legitimate advantage would be gained by allowing the proceedings to continue, and that the claimants did not require vindication in respect of publication to their own solicitor.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 75 (QB)
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 struck out.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Publication, Qualified Privilege, Aggravated Damages, Pre Action Disclosure
Defamation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Publication Qualified Privilege Aggravated Damages Pre Action Disclosure

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 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
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of the Particulars of Claim are permissible
  3. 3 Whether publication to a claimant's solicitor can found a defamation claim

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because the only publication relied upon was to the claimants' solicitor, which does not constitute a real and substantial tort. There was no evidence of publication to any third party, and paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of the Particulars of Claim, which implied wider publication, were speculative and unsupported. The court held that no tangible or legitimate advantage would be gained by allowing the proceedings to continue, and that the claimants did not require vindication in respect of publication to their own solicitor.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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