King v Telegraph Group Ltd. [2003] EWHC 1312 (QB) (09 June 2003)

King v Telegraph Group Ltd. [2003] EWHC 1312 (QB) (09 June 2003)

The defendant's applications for strike out and summary judgment are rejected because there are disputed factual issues suitable for a jury, and it is not possible to conclude at this stage that the claim has no realistic prospect of success. Certain parts of the defence are struck out as impermissible under the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1312
Parties
Claimant: Adam Musa King; Defendant: Telegraph Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Defendant's applications for strike out and summary judgment rejected; claimant's applications to amend and to strike out certain defence passages granted in part.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Conditional Fee Agreements, Qualified Privilege, Justification in Defamation, Security for Costs
Media Law Defamation Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Conditional Fee Agreements Qualified Privilege Justification in Defamation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Musa King

Claimant

Telegraph Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process or for having no realistic prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of justification and qualified privilege are legally sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's applications for strike out and summary judgment are rejected because there are disputed factual issues suitable for a jury, and it is not possible to conclude at this stage that the claim has no realistic prospect of success. Certain parts of the defence are struck out as impermissible under the repetition and conduct rules. The claimant is permitted to amend the particulars of claim.

Court Disposition

Defendant's applications for strike out and summary judgment rejected; claimant's applications to amend and to strike out certain defence passages granted in part.

Orders

  • Defendant's applications dismissed
  • Claimant permitted to amend claim form and particulars of claim