Club La Costa (UK) Plc v Gebhard & Anor

Club La Costa (UK) Plc v Gebhard & Anor

The defendants' correspondence, particularly the letter of 30 July 2008, did not constitute a valid offer of amends under Defamation Act 1996 s.2 because it was equivocal and did not accept that the defamatory meaning referred to the claimant. Therefore, paragraph 6 of the Defence, which relied on the offer of amends, must be struck out.

Parties
Claimant: Club La Costa (UK) PLC; Defendant: Toby Gebhard; Defendant: Inventory Solutions (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications Regarding Offer of Amends and Striking Out Part of Defence
Outcome
Paragraph 6 of the Defence struck out; claimant's applications succeed to that extent only.
Legal Topics
Offer of Amends, Qualified Privilege, Reference in Defamation, Summary Judgment, Striking Out Pleadings
Defamation Civil Procedure Offer of Amends Qualified Privilege Reference in Defamation Summary Judgment Striking Out Pleadings

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Club La Costa (UK) PLC

Claimant

Toby Gebhard

Defendant

Inventory Solutions (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications Regarding Offer of Amends and Striking Out Part of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' correspondence constituted a valid qualified offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996 s.2
  2. 2 Whether defendants can rely on denial of reference and qualified privilege after making an offer of amends
  3. 3 Whether the defence that the words complained of do not refer to the claimant has real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' correspondence, particularly the letter of 30 July 2008, did not constitute a valid offer of amends under Defamation Act 1996 s.2 because it was equivocal and did not accept that the defamatory meaning referred to the claimant. Therefore, paragraph 6 of the Defence, which relied on the offer of amends, must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Paragraph 6 of the Defence struck out; claimant's applications succeed to that extent only.

Orders

  • Paragraph 6 of the Defence is struck out.