Robins v Kordowski & Anor [2011] EWHC 1912 (QB) (22 July 2011)

Robins v Kordowski & Anor [2011] EWHC 1912 (QB) (22 July 2011)

The defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim as the words published were clearly defamatory, the pleaded defences of truth and honest comment failed on the evidence and law, and there was no other reason for a trial. The court had jurisdiction to grant summary relief, including damages, declaration, and injunction, notwithstanding procedural errors in obtaining default judgment.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1912 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Stephen Robins; Claimant: Gabbitas Robins (a firm); Defendant: Rick Kordowski; Defendant: Tim Smee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Summary Disposal Under Defamation Act 1996, Ss. 8 9
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants; application to set aside default judgment refused; summary relief granted.
Legal Topics
Libel, Summary Disposal, Default Judgment, Injunction, Damages, Defences to Defamation (justification, Honest Comment, Qualified Privilege)
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Summary Disposal Default Judgment Injunction Damages Defences to Defamation (justification, Honest Comment, Qualified Privilege)

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Robins

Claimant

Gabbitas Robins (a firm)

Claimant

Rick Kordowski

Defendant

Tim Smee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Summary Disposal Under Defamation Act 1996, Ss. 8 9

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words published were defamatory of the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the defendant had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim (truth, honest comment, privilege)
  3. 3 Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant summary relief after default judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim as the words published were clearly defamatory, the pleaded defences of truth and honest comment failed on the evidence and law, and there was no other reason for a trial. The court had jurisdiction to grant summary relief, including damages, declaration, and injunction, notwithstanding procedural errors in obtaining default judgment.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants; application to set aside default judgment refused; summary relief granted.

Orders

  • Damages of £10,000 awarded to claimants against first defendant
  • Declaration that allegations of lying, dishonesty, or breach of duty by Mr Robins in the relevant litigation are false and defamatory