Richard Parsons v Douglas Atkinson
[2024] EWHC 888 (KB)
Frank Sinton v Maybourne Hotels Limited & Ors
21 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 647 (KB)
High Court
A project manager sued a hotel group and its directors for defamation after being suspended and the information being shared. The judge decided the hotel group didn't say anything untrue and had a good reason to share what they did, and that there was no evidence they intentionally tried to hurt the project manager's reputation. The project manager lost the case.
Key Facts
- •Frank Sinton, a project manager, was suspended from Maybourne Hotel Group (MHG) sites following allegations of inappropriate behavior.
- •The defendants (MHG and its directors) applied for summary judgment on Sinton's libel and malicious falsehood claims.
- •Sinton alleged four publications as defamatory, including a letter informing McKillen of Sinton's suspension and subsequent communications.
- •The defendants argued qualified privilege and the absence of serious harm to Sinton's reputation.
- •Sinton alleged malice, claiming the defendants acted in bad faith due to a commercial dispute between the Al Thani family and Patrick McKillen (Sinton's employer).
Legal Principles
Summary judgment principles under CPR 24.3
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch), Amersi v Leslie [2023] KB 1368 (KB)
Liability for republication in defamation
Gubarev v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2021] EMLR 5
Serious harm requirement in defamation (s.1 Defamation Act 2013)
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27
Qualified privilege in defamation
Bowker v Royal Society for the Protection of Birds [2011] EWHC 737
Malice in defamation and malicious falsehood
Henderson v London Borough of Hackney [2010] EWHC 1651 (QB), Huda v Wells [2017] EWHC 2553 (QB)
Malicious falsehood elements
Peck v Williams Trade Supplies Ltd [2020] EWHC 966
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted to defendants on defamation and malicious falsehood claims.
Sinton lacked a real prospect of establishing publication causing serious harm, or that publications were not protected by qualified privilege, or that defendants acted with malice.
Defendants' qualified privilege defence succeeded.
Publications were made to individuals with a legitimate interest in receiving the information, relating to Sinton's suspension.
Sinton's malice claim failed.
Insufficient evidence to show defendants acted with malice (knowing falsity, recklessness, or dominant improper motive).