Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants defendant's application to dismiss defamation proceedings, on the grounds that they disclose no reasonable cause of action and are bound to fail where the words used in email correspondence by the defendant and copied to the Supreme Court office could be regarded as 'terse' in the context of protracted appeal proceedings concerning the construction of a will bequest, but they could not be regarded as defamatory in circumstances where they were true.
Application to dismiss defamation proceedings on grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action - inherent jurisdiction of the court - O.19 r.28 RSC - construction of a bequest in a will - determination in relation to ambiguity of wording made by the High Court (McGovern J.) - bequest fails - appeal lodged to Supreme Court - correspondence between parties in respect of a failure to lodge booklets pertaining to appeal - allegation by plaintiff that he was humiliated by correspondence sent to Supreme Court office and other legal professionals by reason of mistakes regarding actual case documentation received by court office - plaintiff a practising barrister and allegedly 'publicly discredited' by identification as a legal practitioner - proceedings claiming 'public chastisement', whether plaintiff defamed - whether claim misconceived - plaintiff's affidavit - implication of falsehoods concocted by a legal practitioner - defence of genuine mistake - purported defamation - examination of detailed correspondence between parties and court office - defamation legislative provisions regarding the dismissal of proceedings - email, at its height, is terse - no improper imputation carried - onus on plaintiff to prove defendant acted with malice - proceedings must fail - words in email were not false and in fact were true - defence of qualified privilege established - proceedings dismissed as words not reasonably capable of having a defamatory meaning.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.