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

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

The court held that the defendant's publications were defamatory of the claimant but were made on occasions of qualified privilege as part of the Trust's complaints process. The defendant was not a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of these acts, so Article 8 did not limit the privilege. The claimant failed to prove express malice or that the publications caused serious harm to his reputation as required by s.1 of the Defamation Act 2013. Accordingly, the defendant was not liable for defamation.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2787 (QB)
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, Governor Code of Conduct
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 5 Authorities cited 10 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 protected by qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the defendant acted with express malice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant's publications were defamatory of the claimant but were made on occasions of qualified privilege as part of the Trust's complaints process. The defendant was not a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of these acts, so Article 8 did not limit the privilege. The claimant failed to prove express malice or that the publications caused serious harm to his reputation as required by s.1 of the Defamation Act 2013. Accordingly, the defendant was not liable for defamation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed.