Ann-Marie Janice Smith v Pastor John Charles Surridge & Ors

Ann-Marie Janice Smith v Pastor John Charles Surridge & Ors

The claims were dismissed because the reference was published on an occasion of qualified privilege without malice, and the defendants proved the substantial truth of the core allegations regarding safeguarding issues, particularly the Parliament Visit and Muskah incidents. The negligent misstatement and misuse of private information claims also failed as the reference was accurate, prepared with due care, and published lawfully in a privileged context.

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 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
All claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Negligent Misstatement, Misuse of Private Information, Qualified Privilege, Truth Defence, Serious Harm, Safeguarding in Schools, References and Employment, Unincorporated Associations
Tort Defamation Employment Law Education 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 / Judgment After Trial

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 and, if so, whether malice was proved to rebut that privilege
  3. 3 Whether the defendants proved the substantial truth of the words complained of

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were dismissed because the reference was published on an occasion of qualified privilege without malice, and the defendants proved the substantial truth of the core allegations regarding safeguarding issues, particularly the Parliament Visit and Muskah incidents. The negligent misstatement and misuse of private information claims also failed as the reference was accurate, prepared with due care, and published lawfully in a privileged context.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed