Keith Courtney v Richard Ronksley
[2024] EWHC 572 (KB)
Richard Parsons v Douglas Atkinson
19 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 888 (KB)
High Court
Someone wrote a nasty letter about a businessman. The businessman sued a man who he claimed read the letter aloud to others. The judge didn't believe the businessman proved the man read the letter aloud, so the lawsuit failed. The judge looked at other evidence, but the main problem was lack of proof the letter was read aloud.
Key Facts
- •Claimant sought damages and injunctive relief for defamation and misuse of private information due to a 'poison pen' letter.
- •The letter contained defamatory statements about the claimant's business dealings, treatment of staff and wife, and alleged exploitation of a woman.
- •The defendant denied reading the letter aloud, claiming no publication, or alternatively, no serious harm to the claimant's reputation.
- •Multiple copies of the letter were circulated, and the claimant had already obtained judgments against others who circulated it.
- •The main issue was whether the defendant published the letter by reading it aloud at the fire station.
Legal Principles
Publication is a necessary element in a defamation claim.
Defamation Act 2013, section 1(1)
A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm.
Defamation Act 2013, section 1(1)
The standard of proof in civil cases is the balance of probabilities. The inherent probability or improbability of an event is a factor to be considered.
In re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] A.C. 563, 586; In re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 A.C. 11, para 70
In defamation claims, the court considers the 'percolation' or 'grapevine' effect and the potential for small publications to cause serious harm.
Riley v Murray (No. 2) [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB), para 109(i), (iii)
Outcomes
Libel claim dismissed.
The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant published the letter by reading it aloud. The court preferred the defendant's and another witness's evidence over untested witness statements.
Misuse of private information claim dismissed.
This claim was dependent on the finding of publication in the libel claim, which was dismissed.