Abdulrazaq & Ors v Ul Hassan & Ors [2021] EWHC 3252 (QB) (02 December 2021)

Abdulrazaq & Ors v Ul Hassan & Ors [2021] EWHC 3252 (QB) (02 December 2021)

The Defendants' publications were protected by qualified privilege under both the duty/interest and reply-to-attack categories. The Claimants failed to show a real prospect of establishing malice, either by knowledge of falsity or dominant improper purpose. The evidence and pleadings did not meet the high threshold required to defeat privilege or proceed to trial. Summary judgment is appropriate.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3252 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Tallha Basim Abdulrazaq; Claimant: Basim Ibrahim Abdulrazaq; Claimant: Abdulaziz Basim Abdulrazaq; Defendant: Shaheed Ul Hassan; Defendant: Taha Hassan; Defendant: Ahmed Al-Jannati; Defendant: Dr Mohammed Moslem Saflo; Defendant: Mohammed Abdullah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Claim dismissed (summary judgment for Defendants)
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Religious Organisations, Publication of Expulsion Reasons
Defamation Media Law Qualified Privilege Malice Summary Judgment Strike Out Religious Organisations Publication of Expulsion Reasons

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

Parties

Tallha Basim Abdulrazaq

Claimant

Basim Ibrahim Abdulrazaq

Claimant

Abdulaziz Basim Abdulrazaq

Claimant

Shaheed Ul Hassan

Defendant

Taha Hassan

Defendant

Ahmed Al-Jannati

Defendant

Dr Mohammed Moslem Saflo

Defendant

Mohammed Abdullah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies to the publications by the Defendants regarding the Claimants' expulsion from the Mosque
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants' plea of malice is sustainable and can defeat the privilege
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants' application for summary judgment/strike out should succeed

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants' publications were protected by qualified privilege under both the duty/interest and reply-to-attack categories. The Claimants failed to show a real prospect of establishing malice, either by knowledge of falsity or dominant improper purpose. The evidence and pleadings did not meet the high threshold required to defeat privilege or proceed to trial. Summary judgment is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed (summary judgment for Defendants)

Orders

  • Claim struck out and/or summary judgment granted in favour of Defendants
  • Permission to amend Reply refused insofar as it relates to malice