Sylvan Clement Francis v Paul Pearson
[2024] EWHC 605 (KB)
James Palmer v PC Colin Farmer & Ors.
28 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 976 (KB)
High Court
Someone spread a false rumour about James in a few emails. Even though the rumour was bad, it didn't really hurt him, and the court said it wasn't worth all the legal fuss. A different part of his case is going to a smaller court.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Palmer sued several defendants for libel and misuse of private information (MPI) based on emails containing a false statement that he was convicted of a sexual offense.
- •The emails originated from a police officer (D1) and were circulated internally within Sutton Housing Partnership (D3) and Sutton Council (D4).
- •Mr. Palmer settled with the police officer and the Metropolitan Police Service (D2), receiving substantial damages and an apology.
- •D3 and D4 applied for summary judgment or striking out of Mr. Palmer's claims against them.
- •Mr. Palmer sought to amend his Particulars of Claim.
- •The emails were circulated internally within a limited number of people in housing and local government.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment is granted if the claimant has no real prospect of success.
CPR Part 24.2
A claim can be struck out if it is an abuse of the court's process (Jameel abuse).
Jameel v Dow Jones & Co. [2005] EWCA Civ 75
A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation.
Defamation Act 2013, section 1(1)
In MPI claims, a claimant must show a reasonable expectation of privacy and that this is outweighed by countervailing interests.
McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73; ZXC v Bloomberg [2022] 2 WLR 424
In defamation, the court considers the inherent tendency of the words and their actual impact.
Riley v Murray [2021] EWHC 3437; Lachaux v Independent Print Media [2019] UKSC 27
Evidence of damages recovered in previous actions can be considered in mitigation.
Defamation Act 1952, section 12
Outcomes
D3 and D4's applications for summary judgment were granted.
Mr. Palmer had no real prospect of success on his libel and MPI claims due to lack of evidence of serious harm or actionable detriment. The limited circulation of the emails and lack of tangible negative consequences for Mr. Palmer also contributed to the decision. The court also found the claims to be an abuse of process (Jameel abuse).
Mr. Palmer's application to amend his Particulars of Claim was refused.
The proposed amendments did not address the fundamental flaws in his claims.
Mr. Palmer's data protection claims were transferred to the County Court.
These claims were deemed separate and suitable for a lower court.