Joyce v Sengupta [1992] EWCA Civ 9 (31 July 1992)

Joyce v Sengupta [1992] EWCA Civ 9 (31 July 1992)

The action for malicious falsehood is not an abuse of process merely because it overlaps with defamation and legal aid is available for one but not the other; the statement of claim discloses an arguable case and should not be struck out; the issue of damages for distress should be left for trial.

Citation
[1992] EWCA Civ 9
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Linda Karen Joyce; Respondent (defendant): Kim Sengupta; Respondent (defendant): News (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Statement of Claim
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Malicious Falsehood, Defamation, Legal Aid, Damages, Abuse of Process
Tort Law Media Law Malicious Falsehood Defamation Legal Aid Damages Abuse of Process

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Karen Joyce

Appellant (plaintiff)

Kim Sengupta

Respondent (defendant)

News (UK) Limited

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's action for malicious falsehood is an abuse of process because it is in substance a defamation claim for which legal aid is unavailable.
  2. 2 Whether the action should be struck out as incapable of success or for being uneconomic.
  3. 3 Whether damages for distress and injury to feelings are recoverable in malicious falsehood.

Ratio Decidendi

The action for malicious falsehood is not an abuse of process merely because it overlaps with defamation and legal aid is available for one but not the other; the statement of claim discloses an arguable case and should not be struck out; the issue of damages for distress should be left for trial.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • order below set aside
  • action reinstated