Smith & Ors v Surridge & Ors [2025] EWHC 74 (KB) (20 January 2025)

Smith & Ors v Surridge & Ors [2025] EWHC 74 (KB) (20 January 2025)

The court found that the most serious safeguarding allegation—the Parliament Visit Issue—was proved true on the balance of probabilities, and that the claimants' conduct did amount to a safeguarding issue as defined by the meaning previously determined. As the truth defence succeeded, the claims in libel, negligent misstatement, and misuse of private information necessarily failed. The reference was published on an occasion of qualified privilege and there was no malice. The correct defendants were the individual trustees of the BUC, not the unincorporated association itself.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 74 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Ann-Marie Janice Smith; Claimant: Kayon Judydeen Jackson; Defendant: Pastor John Charles Surridge; Defendant: Pastor Ian Sweeney; Defendant: Pastor Emmanuel Osei; Defendant: Kaz James
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Related Torts / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Negligent Misstatement, Misuse of Private Information, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Truth Defence, Safeguarding in Schools, References and Employment, Unincorporated Associations
Defamation Tort Law Education Law Employment Law Libel Negligent Misstatement Misuse of Private Information Qualified Privilege +5 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ann-Marie Janice Smith

Claimant

Kayon Judydeen Jackson

Claimant

Pastor John Charles Surridge

Defendant

Pastor Ian Sweeney

Defendant

Pastor Emmanuel Osei

Defendant

Kaz James

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Related Torts / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reference caused or was likely to cause serious harm to the claimants' reputations
  2. 2 Whether the reference was published on an occasion of qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether malice was established to defeat qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the most serious safeguarding allegation—the Parliament Visit Issue—was proved true on the balance of probabilities, and that the claimants' conduct did amount to a safeguarding issue as defined by the meaning previously determined. As the truth defence succeeded, the claims in libel, negligent misstatement, and misuse of private information necessarily failed. The reference was published on an occasion of qualified privilege and there was no malice. The correct defendants were the individual trustees of the BUC, not the unincorporated association itself.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • All claims by the claimants are dismissed.
  • No damages awarded.