Powell & Anor v Boladz & Ors [2003] EWHC 2160 (QB) (19 September 2003)

Powell & Anor v Boladz & Ors [2003] EWHC 2160 (QB) (19 September 2003)

The court found that the libel proceedings were not genuinely brought to vindicate the claimants' reputation but were part of a continuing campaign to pursue allegations against the defendants through multiple forums. The action was stale, had not been actively prosecuted, and was an abuse of process. There was no sufficient evidence that the claimants' primary purpose was vindication of reputation, and the continued litigation was oppressive. Accordingly, the claim was struck out.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 2160
Parties
Claimant: William Cassie Powell; Claimant: Anita Diane Powell; Defendant: Paul Boladz; Defendant: Keith Hughes; Defendant: Elwyn Hughes; Defendant: Mike Williams; Defendant: Allan Rees; Defendant: Nicola White; Defendant: Hermina Gray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out as abuse of process
Legal Topics
Libel, Abuse of Process, Qualified Privilege, Justification, Malice, Delay in Prosecution
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Abuse of Process Qualified Privilege Justification Malice Delay in Prosecution

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Cassie Powell

Claimant

Anita Diane Powell

Claimant

Paul Boladz

Defendant

Keith Hughes

Defendant

Elwyn Hughes

Defendant

Mike Williams

Defendant

Allan Rees

Defendant

Nicola White

Defendant

Hermina Gray

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the libel action should be struck out as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were brought to vindicate reputation or as part of a campaign
  3. 3 Whether there is a triable issue on malice

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the libel proceedings were not genuinely brought to vindicate the claimants' reputation but were part of a continuing campaign to pursue allegations against the defendants through multiple forums. The action was stale, had not been actively prosecuted, and was an abuse of process. There was no sufficient evidence that the claimants' primary purpose was vindication of reputation, and the continued litigation was oppressive. Accordingly, the claim was struck out.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as abuse of process

Orders

  • The claim against Dr Williams is struck out.
  • No order as to damages or injunctions in favour of the claimants.