Monks v Warwick District Council [2009] EWHC 959 (QB) (07 May 2009)

Monks v Warwick District Council [2009] EWHC 959 (QB) (07 May 2009)

The claim in respect of the Article was struck out because the pleaded meaning (that the claimant was guilty of a criminal offence despite acquittal) was not one the Article, read as a whole, was capable of bearing. The plea of malice was struck out for lack of particularisation and failure to link any individual with the requisite state of mind to the publication. The claim for general loss of business was struck out as unsustainable, given the limited publication. The applications to amend to add special and exemplary damages were refused as defective, unsupported, and too late.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 959
Parties
Claimant: John Monks; Defendant: Warwick District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out/summary Judgment and Amendment of Pleadings
Outcome
Defendant's application granted; Claimant's application refused.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Justification (truth), Malice, Damages, Pleading Requirements, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Qualified Privilege Justification (truth) Malice Damages +3 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Monks

Claimant

Warwick District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out/summary Judgment and Amendment of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim in respect of the Article should be struck out for failing to plead a sustainable defamatory meaning
  2. 2 Whether the plea of malice is sufficiently particularised to proceed
  3. 3 Whether the claim for general loss of business/custom is sustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The claim in respect of the Article was struck out because the pleaded meaning (that the claimant was guilty of a criminal offence despite acquittal) was not one the Article, read as a whole, was capable of bearing. The plea of malice was struck out for lack of particularisation and failure to link any individual with the requisite state of mind to the publication. The claim for general loss of business was struck out as unsustainable, given the limited publication. The applications to amend to add special and exemplary damages were refused as defective, unsupported, and too late.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application granted; Claimant's application refused.

Orders

  • Claim in respect of the Article struck out.
  • Plea of malice struck out.