John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Sonia Vanessa Poulton

John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Sonia Vanessa Poulton

The Defendant had a real prospect of successfully defending the libel claim on the basis that she did not adopt or endorse the defamatory meanings alleged, did not exercise editorial control, and could rely on public interest and substantial truth defences. The Defendant's DPA/GDPR defences based on journalistic exemption and public interest were properly arguable. The harassment Counterclaim against the Claimant was sufficiently pleaded and fact-sensitive, not suitable for summary determination. Summary judgment and strike-out applications by the Claimant were refused except for limited strike-out of irrelevant parts of the Defence.

Parties
Claimant: John Alexander Melvin Hemming; Defendant: Sonia Vanessa Poulton; Third Party: Samuel Collingwood Smith; Fourth Party: Darren Laverty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Claimant's applications for summary judgment and strike-out refused, except for limited strike-out of specified paragraphs in the Defence.
Legal Topics
Libel, Gdpr/dpa Compliance, Protection From Harassment Act, Public Interest Defence, Serious Harm Threshold, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Honest Opinion, Truth Defence
Defamation Data Protection Harassment Libel Gdpr/dpa Compliance Protection From Harassment Act Public Interest Defence Serious Harm Threshold +4 more

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 10 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Alexander Melvin Hemming

Claimant

Sonia Vanessa Poulton

Defendant

Samuel Collingwood Smith

Third Party

Darren Laverty

Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's statements in a video podcast were defamatory of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant had editorial control and responsibility for publication
  3. 3 Whether the statements caused or were likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant had a real prospect of successfully defending the libel claim on the basis that she did not adopt or endorse the defamatory meanings alleged, did not exercise editorial control, and could rely on public interest and substantial truth defences. The Defendant's DPA/GDPR defences based on journalistic exemption and public interest were properly arguable. The harassment Counterclaim against the Claimant was sufficiently pleaded and fact-sensitive, not suitable for summary determination. Summary judgment and strike-out applications by the Claimant were refused except for limited strike-out of irrelevant parts of the Defence.

Court Disposition

Claimant's applications for summary judgment and strike-out refused, except for limited strike-out of specified paragraphs in the Defence.

Orders

  • Permission granted to Defendant to amend Defence and Counterclaim, except for disallowed introductory sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 19.
  • Strike-out of sub-paragraphs (xi) to (xv) of the Particulars of Truth under paragraph 19 of the Defence.