Mengi v Hermitage

Mengi v Hermitage

The defendant's publications were substantially true regarding the claimant's encouragement of a defamatory media campaign and complicity in his brother's intimidation and corruption. The defence of justification succeeds under s 5 Defamation Act 1952, and the defence of qualified privilege (reply to attack) also succeeds as the defendant's response was proportionate, relevant, and not malicious.

Parties
Claimant: Reginald Mengi; Defendant: Sarah Hermitage
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Justification, Libel, Criminal Libel, Reply to Attack
Defamation Media Law Tort Qualified Privilege Justification Libel Criminal Libel Reply to Attack

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reginald Mengi

Claimant

Sarah Hermitage

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's publications were defamatory of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the defence of justification succeeds
  3. 3 Whether the defence of qualified privilege (reply to attack) applies

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's publications were substantially true regarding the claimant's encouragement of a defamatory media campaign and complicity in his brother's intimidation and corruption. The defence of justification succeeds under s 5 Defamation Act 1952, and the defence of qualified privilege (reply to attack) also succeeds as the defendant's response was proportionate, relevant, and not malicious.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's claim is dismissed.
  • Defendant succeeds on both justification and qualified privilege.