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, in a case concerning whether a decision on damages, arising in the context of defamation proceedings, following acceptance of an offer to make amends, and in the absence of agreement between the parties, is to be made by a judge alone and not a jury, rules that the plaintiff is entitled have his damages assessed by a jury should he so wish.
Defamation – whether the plaintiff is entitled to have damages determined by a jury – s. 23(1)(c) of the Defamation Act 2009 – Cox and McCullough, Defamation Law and Practice (Clarus Press, 2014) – whether a decision on damages following acceptance of an offer to make amends, in the absence of agreement between the parties, is to be made by a judge alone and not a jury – Law of Torts (Bloomsbury Professional, 2013) McMahon and Binchy – whether in circumstances where an offer of amends had been made and accepted pursuant to s. 22 of the 2009 Act, but the parties are unable to reach agreement as to the issue of quantum of damages or costs, is there an entitlement under s. 23(l)(c) to a jury trial – the plaintiff is entitled have his damages assessed by a jury, rather than by a judge sitting alone, should he wish to do so.
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.