Powell & Anor v Boladz & Ors

Powell & Anor v Boladz & Ors

The application to strike out the libel action is refused. Although there has been inordinate delay, it is excused by the failures of public authorities and ongoing investigations. A fair trial remains possible, and the claimants have a genuine desire to vindicate reputation. The requirements of Article 6 ECHR and the overriding objective do not mandate striking out. Both parties' rights must be balanced; denying the claimants access to justice would be a disproportionate interference with their rights.

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
Outcome
Application to strike out refused
Legal Topics
Libel, Delay in Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Fair Trial, Article 6 ECHR, Case Management
Defamation Civil Procedure Human Rights Libel Delay in Proceedings Abuse of Process Qualified Privilege Malice +3 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 6 Authorities cited 25 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the libel action is an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether delay has made a fair trial impossible
  3. 3 Whether Article 6 ECHR requires a trial within a reasonable time

Ratio Decidendi

The application to strike out the libel action is refused. Although there has been inordinate delay, it is excused by the failures of public authorities and ongoing investigations. A fair trial remains possible, and the claimants have a genuine desire to vindicate reputation. The requirements of Article 6 ECHR and the overriding objective do not mandate striking out. Both parties' rights must be balanced; denying the claimants access to justice would be a disproportionate interference with their rights.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused

Orders

  • Parties to address the court on further directions for the action