Ontulmus & Ors v Collett & Ors [2013] EWHC 980 (QB) (25 April 2013)

Ontulmus & Ors v Collett & Ors [2013] EWHC 980 (QB) (25 April 2013)

The corporate claimants sufficiently pleaded a relevant reputation in the minds of the publishees in the relevant jurisdictions; however, background paragraphs not relied upon for the cause of action should be struck out.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 980 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mustafa Ontulmus; Claimant: MTH Yatcilik; Claimant: Kaiserwerft GmbH; Defendant: Sir Ian Collett; Defendant: Ward & McKenzie (Yacht Consultants) Limited; Defendant: Peter Moore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application partly allowed and partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Corporate Reputation, Foreign Law Pleading, Striking Out Pleadings, Jurisdiction
Defamation Private International Law Civil Procedure Libel Corporate Reputation Foreign Law Pleading Striking Out Pleadings Jurisdiction

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mustafa Ontulmus

Claimant

MTH Yatcilik

Claimant

Kaiserwerft GmbH

Claimant

Sir Ian Collett

Defendant

Ward & McKenzie (Yacht Consultants) Limited

Defendant

Peter Moore

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the corporate claimants pleaded sufficient trading reputation in the relevant foreign jurisdictions
  2. 2 Whether background paragraphs in particulars of claim should be struck out as irrelevant

Ratio Decidendi

The corporate claimants sufficiently pleaded a relevant reputation in the minds of the publishees in the relevant jurisdictions; however, background paragraphs not relied upon for the cause of action should be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed and partly dismissed

Orders

  • Paragraphs 7 to 10 of the Amended Particulars of Claim are struck out.
  • Application to strike out the claims of the corporate claimants is dismissed.