Khader v Aziz & Ors

Khader v Aziz & Ors

The appeal was dismissed because the defence of qualified privilege applied to the first alleged publication, there was no evidence of malice, and the claims relating to the second and third publications were unsupported by evidence. Even if the first publication were proved, the claim was not real or substantial and was an abuse of process. The solicitor acted within the scope of his authority, and the pleadings and evidence did not support the claims.

Parties
Appellant: Leila Khader; First Respondent: Mariam Aziz; Respondent: Davenport Lyons
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment/strike Out
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Abuse of Process, Summary Judgment, Slander, Retainer Scope, Costs
Defamation Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Malice Abuse of Process Summary Judgment Slander Retainer Scope +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leila Khader

Appellant

Mariam Aziz

First Respondent

Davenport Lyons

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment/strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applied to the alleged defamatory statements
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence of malice to defeat qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the claims disclosed a real and substantial tort or were an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the defence of qualified privilege applied to the first alleged publication, there was no evidence of malice, and the claims relating to the second and third publications were unsupported by evidence. Even if the first publication were proved, the claim was not real or substantial and was an abuse of process. The solicitor acted within the scope of his authority, and the pleadings and evidence did not support the claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in full
  • Order prohibiting publication of confidential annex upheld