Marathon Mutual Ltd & Anor v Waters & Ors [2009] EWHC 1931 (QB) (31 July 2009)

Marathon Mutual Ltd & Anor v Waters & Ors [2009] EWHC 1931 (QB) (31 July 2009)

The law requires that there be some reference, direct or indirect, in the words complained of to the claimant or to his business, property or other economic interests for a malicious falsehood claim to be sustainable. However, it is arguable that Regis's business, being the management of Marathon, may be sufficiently referred to by the words about Marathon to allow Regis to re-plead its case. The claim is not struck out at this stage.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1931 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Marathon Mutual Ltd; Claimant: Regis Mutual Management Ltd; Defendant: Mr David Waters; Defendant: Primecare Insurance Services Ltd (Trading as Care Home Insurance Services)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim and for Directions
Outcome
Application to strike out Regis's claim refused at this stage; directions given to re-plead claims.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Malicious Falsehood, Pleading Requirements, Reference/identification in Tort, Economic Loss
Tort Law Defamation Malicious Falsehood Pleading Requirements Reference/identification in Tort Economic Loss

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marathon Mutual Ltd

Claimant

Regis Mutual Management Ltd

Claimant

Mr David Waters

Defendant

Primecare Insurance Services Ltd (Trading as Care Home Insurance Services)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim and for Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reference to the claimant is an essential element of the tort of malicious falsehood
  2. 2 Whether Regis Mutual Management Ltd can claim for malicious falsehood when the words complained of do not expressly refer to it
  3. 3 Whether losses suffered by Regis as a result of words about Marathon are recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The law requires that there be some reference, direct or indirect, in the words complained of to the claimant or to his business, property or other economic interests for a malicious falsehood claim to be sustainable. However, it is arguable that Regis's business, being the management of Marathon, may be sufficiently referred to by the words about Marathon to allow Regis to re-plead its case. The claim is not struck out at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out Regis's claim refused at this stage; directions given to re-plead claims.

Orders

  • Marathon and Regis to re-plead their cases in accordance with the court's directions.
  • Regis permitted to apply to re-plead its case in relation to the reference issue.