Flymenow Ltd v Quick Air Jet Charter GmbH [2016] EWHC 3197 (QB) (15 December 2016)

Flymenow Ltd v Quick Air Jet Charter GmbH [2016] EWHC 3197 (QB) (15 December 2016)

The Notice bore the meaning that the claimant was insolvent, being unable to pay its debts as they fell due. The defendant failed to prove the substantial truth of this meaning. There was no agreement for time to pay; the claimant was in default of its contractual obligations. However, the publication was protected by qualified privilege as the defendant had a legitimate interest in warning others in the industry. The claimant failed to prove malice. The claim is dismissed.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3197 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: FlyMeNow Limited; Defendant: Quick Air Jet Charter GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification Defence, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Contractual Payment Terms, Abuse of Process
Defamation Contract Law Libel Justification Defence Qualified Privilege Malice Contractual Payment Terms Abuse of Process

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FlyMeNow Limited

Claimant

Quick Air Jet Charter GmbH

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the natural and ordinary meaning of the Notice?
  2. 2 Was the Notice substantially true (justification)?
  3. 3 Did the publication take place on an occasion protected by qualified privilege?

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice bore the meaning that the claimant was insolvent, being unable to pay its debts as they fell due. The defendant failed to prove the substantial truth of this meaning. There was no agreement for time to pay; the claimant was in default of its contractual obligations. However, the publication was protected by qualified privilege as the defendant had a legitimate interest in warning others in the industry. The claimant failed to prove malice. The claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for damages for libel dismissed
  • No order for damages