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 action is struck out as an abuse of process because it was not brought for the legitimate purpose of vindicating reputation but as part of a continuing campaign to pursue allegations against the defendants after other avenues failed. The claimants' conduct, delay, and the context of the proceedings demonstrate that the predominant purpose was not to obtain redress for reputational harm. There is no sufficient evidence of malice to justify allowing the action to proceed. The counterclaim for an injunction is also dismissed as academic.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 2160 (QB)
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 / Application to Strike Out Claim and Counterclaim for Injunction
Outcome
Claim struck out as abuse of process; counterclaim dismissed as academic
Legal Topics
Libel, Abuse of Process, Qualified Privilege, Justification, Malice, Strike Out Applications
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Abuse of Process Qualified Privilege Justification Malice Strike Out Applications

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 4 Authorities cited 5 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 / Application to Strike Out Claim and Counterclaim for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the libel action should be struck out as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' purpose in bringing the action was to vindicate reputation or to pursue a campaign
  3. 3 Whether the defence of justification and qualified privilege applies

Ratio Decidendi

The action is struck out as an abuse of process because it was not brought for the legitimate purpose of vindicating reputation but as part of a continuing campaign to pursue allegations against the defendants after other avenues failed. The claimants' conduct, delay, and the context of the proceedings demonstrate that the predominant purpose was not to obtain redress for reputational harm. There is no sufficient evidence of malice to justify allowing the action to proceed. The counterclaim for an injunction is also dismissed as academic.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as abuse of process; counterclaim dismissed as academic

Orders

  • The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.
  • The counterclaim for an injunction is dismissed as academic.