Malik v Trump [2016] EWHC 2011 (QB) (28 July 2016)

Malik v Trump [2016] EWHC 2011 (QB) (28 July 2016)

The claim was automatically struck out for failure to plead defamatory meaning as required by CPR 53 PD 2.3. Even if not struck out, the claim would fail as the words did not refer to or identify the claimant, the articles as a whole were not defamatory, and there was no actionable claim under the Equality Act 2010 or Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Articles 9 and 14 ECHR were not engaged as the defendant is not a public authority.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2011 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Kamran Malik; Defendant: Mr Donald John Trump
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Application for Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction And/or Deem Service
Outcome
Claim struck out; permission to serve out of jurisdiction refused
Legal Topics
Defamation, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Human Rights, Equality Act, Racial and Religious Hatred Act
Defamation Civil Procedure Service Out of Jurisdiction Human Rights Equality Act Racial and Religious Hatred Act

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Kamran Malik

Claimant

Mr Donald John Trump

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Application for Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction And/or Deem Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is properly pleaded in defamation under CPR 53 PD 2.3
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of refer to or identify the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the words are defamatory when read as a whole

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was automatically struck out for failure to plead defamatory meaning as required by CPR 53 PD 2.3. Even if not struck out, the claim would fail as the words did not refer to or identify the claimant, the articles as a whole were not defamatory, and there was no actionable claim under the Equality Act 2010 or Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Articles 9 and 14 ECHR were not engaged as the defendant is not a public authority.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; permission to serve out of jurisdiction refused

Orders

  • Claim automatically struck out under unless order of 29 January 2016
  • Permission to serve out of jurisdiction refused