Howe & Co v Burden [2004] EWHC 196 (QB) (11 February 2004)

Howe & Co v Burden [2004] EWHC 196 (QB) (11 February 2004)

The application for summary judgment and the appeal from the Master's refusal to strike out the claim were dismissed because the defences of qualified privilege and consent were not so clearly established as to preclude a trial, and there were factual disputes requiring determination by a jury. The plea of malice was struck out as prolix and inadequately pleaded, but the Claimants were given leave to re-plead it.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 196 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Howe & Co; Defendant: Patricia Burden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Slander Action (defamation) / Appeal From Master's Order and Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and application for summary judgment dismissed; plea of malice struck out with leave to re-plead.
Legal Topics
Slander, Qualified Privilege, Abuse of Process, Consent (leave and Licence), Malice, Summary Judgment
Defamation Civil Procedure Slander Qualified Privilege Abuse of Process Consent (leave and Licence) Malice Summary Judgment

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howe & Co

Claimant

Patricia Burden

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Slander Action (defamation) / Appeal From Master's Order and Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted on the basis of qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted on the basis of consent (leave and licence)

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary judgment and the appeal from the Master's refusal to strike out the claim were dismissed because the defences of qualified privilege and consent were not so clearly established as to preclude a trial, and there were factual disputes requiring determination by a jury. The plea of malice was struck out as prolix and inadequately pleaded, but the Claimants were given leave to re-plead it.

Court Disposition

Appeal and application for summary judgment dismissed; plea of malice struck out with leave to re-plead.

Orders

  • Appeal from Master's order refusing to strike out claim dismissed
  • Application for summary judgment dismissed