Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Whittingham v Jones [2026] EWHC 979 (KB) (29 April 2026)
A libel claim over emails sent by a school headteacher was struck out because the pleaded case could not realistically prove serious harm under the Defamation Act 2013.
The High Court struck out a libel and malicious falsehood claim over an email sent in a shareholder dispute, finding no serious harm, qualified privilege, and no viable case on malice.
McAteer v Thoburn [2025] EWHC 1900 (KB) (24 July 2025)
The High Court struck out a libel and malicious falsehood claim and granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding no real prospect of success.
The High Court struck out two fraud-based claims seeking to reopen a 2021 defamation case, upheld a civil restraint order, and rejected default judgment.
High Court defamation and privacy case about a school reference alleging safeguarding issues. The claims were dismissed after the court found qualified privilege, no malice, and substantial truth on key points.
Smith & Ors v Surridge & Ors [2025] EWHC 74 (KB) (20 January 2025)
High Court defamation and privacy claim over a school reference alleging safeguarding issues dismissed; the court found substantial truth, qualified privilege, and no malice.
Iqbal v Geo TV Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1566 (13 December 2024)
Court of Appeal in a libel appeal held that Geo TV’s broadcasts were protected by qualified privilege, allowing summary judgment for Geo.
The Court of Appeal held that Geo TV’s broadcasts were protected reports of a public meeting and granted summary judgment, dismissing Salman Iqbal’s libel claim.
The Deputy Master was wrong to hold that the defendant had an unanswerable defence of consent. The claimant did not expressly or impliedly consent to defamatory statements made by colleagues during grievance investigations merely by agreeing to be subject to the grievance procedure. The scope of consent under the contract and grievance policy did not extend to such publications, especially given the policy's prohibition on false or malicious grievances. Each case turns on its facts, and in this case, the evidence of consent was equivocal and insufficient.
Source excerpt
The claimant has no real prospect of establishing malice or defeating the defence of qualified privilege in respect of the publications, nor of proving serious harm to reputation or the elements of malicious falsehood. Summary judgment is granted to the defendants on the defamation and malicious falsehood claims.
Source excerpt
Explore more
