Malik v Trump

Malik v Trump

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 words complained of did not refer to or identify the claimant, were not defamatory in context, and no actionable claim arose under the Equality Act 2010, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, or Articles 9 and 14 ECHR. There was no reasonable prospect of success, and permission to serve out of jurisdiction was refused.

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; Consideration of Strike Out for Procedural Non Compliance
Outcome
Claim struck out; permission to serve out of jurisdiction refused
Legal Topics
Defamation Group Identification, Defamation Meaning and Reference, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Article 9 ECHR Freedom of Religion, Article 14 ECHR Discrimination, Equality Act 2010, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
Defamation Human Rights Civil Procedure Defamation Group Identification Defamation Meaning and Reference Service Out of Jurisdiction Article 9 ECHR Freedom of Religion Article 14 ECHR Discrimination +2 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 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; Consideration of Strike Out for Procedural Non Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is properly pleaded and actionable in defamation
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of refer to or identify the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the words are defamatory in context

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 words complained of did not refer to or identify the claimant, were not defamatory in context, and no actionable claim arose under the Equality Act 2010, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, or Articles 9 and 14 ECHR. There was no reasonable prospect of success, and permission to serve out of jurisdiction was refused.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; permission to serve out of jurisdiction refused

Orders

  • Claim automatically struck out for failure to comply with unless order and pleading requirements
  • Permission to serve out of jurisdiction or deem service in Scotland refused