Whittingham v Jones [2026] EWHC 979 (KB) (29 April 2026)

Whittingham v Jones [2026] EWHC 979 (KB) (29 April 2026)

The claim was struck out because the Claimant's pleadings failed to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a libel claim and were incapable of amendment to set out a case with a realistic prospect of proving serious harm as required by s1 Defamation Act 2013, given the limited publication and lack of evidence of reputational impact.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 979 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Miss Kasima Whittingham; Defendant: Mr Sam Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / Defendant's Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out; no permission to amend; not certified as totally without merit.
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm Requirement, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Service of Proceedings, Pre Action Protocol Compliance, Qualified Privilege
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Serious Harm Requirement Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Service of Proceedings Pre Action Protocol Compliance +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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Kasima Whittingham

Claimant

Mr Sam Jones

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / Defendant's Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds for bringing a claim in libel
  2. 2 Whether the claim is capable of amendment to plead serious harm as required by s1 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol justifies strike out

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because the Claimant's pleadings failed to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a libel claim and were incapable of amendment to set out a case with a realistic prospect of proving serious harm as required by s1 Defamation Act 2013, given the limited publication and lack of evidence of reputational impact.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; no permission to amend; not certified as totally without merit.