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 was not one the Article could reasonably bear when read as a whole. The plea of malice was struck out for lack of particularisation and evidential basis. The claim for general loss of business was unsustainable as the Email's publication was too limited. Applications to amend to add special and exemplary damages were refused for lack of proper pleading, evidential support, and prospects of success.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 959 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: John Monks; Defendant: Warwick District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Libel / Pre Trial Applications (strike Out/summary Judgment and Amendment of Pleadings)
Outcome
Defendant's application granted in full; Claimant's application refused.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Justification, Malice, Damages, Pleadings, Summary Judgment, Strike Out
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Qualified Privilege Justification 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 / Pre Trial 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 not bearing the pleaded defamatory meaning
  2. 2 Whether the plea of malice is sufficiently particularised to proceed
  3. 3 Whether the claim for general loss of custom and business is sustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The claim in respect of the Article was struck out because the pleaded meaning was not one the Article could reasonably bear when read as a whole. The plea of malice was struck out for lack of particularisation and evidential basis. The claim for general loss of business was unsustainable as the Email's publication was too limited. Applications to amend to add special and exemplary damages were refused for lack of proper pleading, evidential support, and prospects of success.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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