Trumm v Norman [2008] EWHC 116 (QB) (29 January 2008)

Trumm v Norman [2008] EWHC 116 (QB) (29 January 2008)

The words published by the defendant were defamatory of the claimant in respect of the first and second passages, imputing disreputable conduct, untruthfulness, and obsessive behaviour. Qualified privilege did not protect publication to non-members of ASLEF who had no special interest. The claimant's own provocative conduct and publications justified a substantial reduction in damages.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 116
Parties
Claimant: Steven Trumm; Defendant: Keith Norman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant in part; damages awarded
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Damages, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Publication, Reduction of Damages Due to Provocation
Defamation Tort Libel Qualified Privilege Damages Meaning of Defamatory Statements Publication Reduction of Damages Due to Provocation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Trumm

Claimant

Keith Norman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words published by the defendant were defamatory of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the publications were protected by qualified privilege
  3. 3 Assessment of damages for libel

Ratio Decidendi

The words published by the defendant were defamatory of the claimant in respect of the first and second passages, imputing disreputable conduct, untruthfulness, and obsessive behaviour. Qualified privilege did not protect publication to non-members of ASLEF who had no special interest. The claimant's own provocative conduct and publications justified a substantial reduction in damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant in part; damages awarded

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £7,500 in damages