Richard Parsons v Douglas Atkinson
[2024] EWHC 888 (KB)
Keith Courtney v Richard Ronksley
13 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 572 (KB)
High Court
A businessman sued for libel after a letter criticized his charity's safety. The judge threw out the case because the businessman couldn't show the letter damaged his reputation. The people who read the letter said it didn't affect their opinion of him, and the judge didn't think that would change.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Keith Courtney (Claimant), a businessman and trustee of the Elaine Bain Family Trust (EBFT), sued Mr. Richard Ronksley (Defendant), CEO of Altus Multi-Academy Trust, for libel.
- •The libel stemmed from a letter Ronksley wrote outlining serious health and safety concerns about EBFT premises used by Kingsway Park High School, leading to the school's withdrawal.
- •The letter was also sent to Cardinal Langley RC High School and Rochdale Borough Council.
- •Courtney claimed the letter's implications damaged his reputation.
- •Ronksley applied for summary judgment, arguing Courtney lacked a real prospect of proving serious reputational harm.
Legal Principles
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, s.1(1)).
Defamation Act 2013
The 'serious harm' test focuses on the effect of publication on third-party publishees' minds, not on adverse actions taken by them. Evidence of adverse actions can be strong evidence of the publishee's mindset.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612
In cases with limited publishees, a claimant must show direct evidence of impact from the publishees unless inherent probabilities establish the harm.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612; Amersi v Leslie [2023] EWHC 1368 (KB)
For summary judgment, the claimant must have a 'realistic' prospect of success, not merely an arguable one. The court should not conduct a 'mini-trial' but consider reasonably expected evidence at trial.
Easyair v Opal [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted to the Defendant.
The Claimant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of proving serious reputational harm. The evidence from the original recipients of the letter indicated no negative impact on their opinion of the Claimant. There was no basis to expect this to change at trial.