Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 2068 (QB) (01 August 2022)

Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 2068 (QB) (01 August 2022)

The claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the publications caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation in England and Wales. The evidence for serious harm was unsubstantiated, inconsistent, and in some respects false. The meanings of the publications were defamatory, but the statutory threshold of serious harm was not met.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2068 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Craig Steven Wright; Defendant: Peter McCormack
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Libel/defamation / Judgment After Trial on Meaning, Liability, and Serious Harm
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Publication, Reputation, Damages
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Publication Reputation Damages

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Steven Wright

Claimant

Peter McCormack

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel/defamation / Judgment After Trial on Meaning, Liability, and Serious Harm

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the meaning of the impugned publications?
  2. 2 Is the defendant liable for republication of Publication 16?
  3. 3 Did the publications cause or were they likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation under s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the publications caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation in England and Wales. The evidence for serious harm was unsubstantiated, inconsistent, and in some respects false. The meanings of the publications were defamatory, but the statutory threshold of serious harm was not met.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's claim for libel is dismissed
  • No damages awarded