Sube & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Claimant: Arnold Mballe Sube; Claimant: Jeanne Mballe Sube; Defendant: News Group Newspapers Ltd; Defendant: Express Newspapers
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 24 May 2018
Procedural Posture: Civil / Preliminary Issues and Applications Ruling
Outcome: Claims for libel, malicious falsehood, exemplary damages, and Equality Act breaches struck out or disallowed; harassment claim allowed and amended; Data Protection Act claim stayed; applications to strike out certain paragraphs partially granted; permission to amend DPA claim refused.
Legal Topics: Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Exemplary Damages, Serious Harm Threshold, Harassment, Data Protection Breach, Equality Act Claims, Pleading Standards, Limitation Periods

Defamation Harassment Data Protection Equality/discrimination Libel Malicious Falsehood Exemplary Damages Serious Harm Threshold +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10

Parties

Arnold Mballe Sube

Claimant

Jeanne Mballe Sube

Claimant

News Group Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Express Newspapers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Preliminary Issues and Applications Ruling

Legal Issues

1 Whether articles published by defendants conveyed defamatory factual imputations about claimants
2 Whether derogatory comments or opinions in articles meet the serious harm threshold under s 1 Defamation Act 2013
3 Whether Comment Posts constitute harassment or defamation

Ratio Decidendi

None of the articles published by defendants conveyed defamatory factual imputations about claimants; derogatory comments or opinions did not individually meet the serious harm threshold under s 1 Defamation Act 2013; claims for exemplary damages, malicious falsehood, and Equality Act breaches were struck out for lack of reasonable basis and/or jurisdiction; harassment claim allowed to proceed and amended to include Comment Posts; Data Protection Act claim not struck out but stayed under s 32(4) and further amendments refused for lack of particularity.

Court Disposition

Claims for libel, malicious falsehood, exemplary damages, and Equality Act breaches struck out or disallowed; harassment claim allowed and amended; Data Protection Act claim stayed; applications to strike out certain paragraphs partially granted; permission to amend DPA claim refused.

Orders

Strike out sentences in paragraphs 5 and 8 alleging Comment Posts defamatory
Amend Particulars of Claim to clarify no defamation claim for Comment Posts

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.