Tilbrook v Parr [2012] EWHC 1946 (QB) (13 July 2012)

Tilbrook v Parr [2012] EWHC 1946 (QB) (13 July 2012)

The words complained of are not reasonably capable of being understood as referring to the Claimant individually; therefore, the claim in defamation and malicious falsehood must fail.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1946 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Robin Tilbrook; Defendant: Stuart Parr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / Application to Strike Out Claim or for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out; summary judgment for Defendant
Legal Topics
Identification in Defamation, Group Libel, Malice, Publication Requirements
Defamation Malicious Falsehood Freedom of Expression Identification in Defamation Group Libel Malice Publication Requirements

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Tilbrook

Claimant

Stuart Parr

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / Application to Strike Out Claim or for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the words complained of reasonably capable of being understood as referring to the Claimant?
  2. 2 Can a claim for defamation or malicious falsehood succeed where the claimant is not named and no facts are pleaded to identify him individually?
  3. 3 Is there a proper plea of malice or special damage for malicious falsehood?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are not reasonably capable of being understood as referring to the Claimant individually; therefore, the claim in defamation and malicious falsehood must fail.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; summary judgment for Defendant

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Permission to apply for amendment if Claimant wishes to rely on other publications