David v Hosany [2017] EWHC 2787 (QB) (10 November 2017)

David v Hosany [2017] EWHC 2787 (QB) (10 November 2017)

The defendant's publications were defamatory of the claimant but were made on occasions of qualified privilege as part of a complaints process within the NHS Trust. The defendant was not acting as a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 in making the complaints, so Article 8 ECHR did not preclude privilege. The claimant failed to prove express malice or that the publications caused serious harm to his reputation. Accordingly, the defendant is not liable in defamation.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2787
Parties
Claimant: Kofoworola Adeolu David; Defendant: Zara Hosany
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Express Malice, Serious Harm, Publication, Article 8 ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998, Governance in Public Bodies
Defamation Tort Law Human Rights Libel Qualified Privilege Express Malice Serious Harm Publication +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kofoworola Adeolu David

Claimant

Zara Hosany

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's publications were defamatory of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the publications were made on occasions of qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was actuated by express malice

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's publications were defamatory of the claimant but were made on occasions of qualified privilege as part of a complaints process within the NHS Trust. The defendant was not acting as a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 in making the complaints, so Article 8 ECHR did not preclude privilege. The claimant failed to prove express malice or that the publications caused serious harm to his reputation. Accordingly, the defendant is not liable in defamation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed in its entirety.