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 in the first and second passages were defamatory of the claimant, imputing disreputable conduct and untruthfulness, and suggesting obsessive behaviour leading to family breakdown. Qualified privilege applied to publication to ASLEF members but not to non-members such as journalists and general subscribers. The claimant's own provocative conduct and publications were relevant to the assessment of damages, resulting in a reduced award.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 116 (QB)
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 on the first and second passages; claim on the third passage dismissed; damages awarded.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Damages, Meaning of Defamatory Statements
Defamation Media Law Libel Qualified Privilege Damages Meaning of Defamatory Statements

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 4
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 in the first and second passages were defamatory of the claimant, imputing disreputable conduct and untruthfulness, and suggesting obsessive behaviour leading to family breakdown. Qualified privilege applied to publication to ASLEF members but not to non-members such as journalists and general subscribers. The claimant's own provocative conduct and publications were relevant to the assessment of damages, resulting in a reduced award.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant on the first and second passages; claim on the third passage dismissed; damages awarded.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £7,500 in damages.