Cairns v Modi [2010] EWHC 2859 (QB) (10 November 2010)

Cairns v Modi [2010] EWHC 2859 (QB) (10 November 2010)

The applications for a preliminary issue and strike out were dismissed because the court found that the question of publication should not be tried as a preliminary issue at this stage, the difference between the experts could be narrowed, and the primary purpose of the action—vindication—remained legitimate given the real risk of further publication. Abuse of process is not determined solely by the number of publishees, and the procedural posture did not justify the Defendant's applications.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2859
Parties
Claimant: Chris Lance Cairns; Defendant: Lalit Modi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Application Regarding Preliminary Issue and Strike Out
Outcome
Defendant's applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Publication on Internet, Preliminary Issues, Service Out of Jurisdiction
Defamation Media Law Libel Jurisdiction Abuse of Process Publication on Internet Preliminary Issues Service Out of Jurisdiction

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chris Lance Cairns

Claimant

Lalit Modi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Application Regarding Preliminary Issue and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extent of publication of the Tweet within England and Wales should be tried as a preliminary issue
  2. 2 Whether the claim in respect of the Tweet should be struck out as an abuse of process for lack of substantial tort within the jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for a preliminary issue and strike out were dismissed because the court found that the question of publication should not be tried as a preliminary issue at this stage, the difference between the experts could be narrowed, and the primary purpose of the action—vindication—remained legitimate given the real risk of further publication. Abuse of process is not determined solely by the number of publishees, and the procedural posture did not justify the Defendant's applications.

Court Disposition

Defendant's applications dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for preliminary issue and strike out dismissed
  • Parties invited to agree directions for service of Defence and further progress of the action