Western Avenue Properties Limited & Anor v Sadhana Soni & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2124 (KB)
Sylvan Clement Francis v Paul Pearson
19 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 605 (KB)
High Court
Neighbours fought over libelous emails. Defendants wanted the case thrown out because it took too long. The judge said there wasn't enough evidence it was intentionally delayed, and kept the case going. He suggested the neighbors try to settle it outside of court.
Key Facts
- •Sylvan Clement Francis (Claimant) brought two libel claims against Paul Pearson and Susannah Burston (Defendants), both neighbours in a gated community.
- •The claims arose from emails sent by the Defendants containing allegations of assault, stalking, and anti-social behaviour against the Claimant.
- •The Defendants applied to strike out the claims for abuse of process due to inordinate and inexcusable delay and/or on 'Jameel grounds' (no real or substantial tort).
- •The Claimant sought permission to re-amend his Particulars of Claim.
- •Significant delay occurred, including a 14.5-month period of inactivity after a failed mediation.
Legal Principles
In libel proceedings, claimants should proceed expeditiously.
Adelson and another v Anderson and another [2011] EWHC 2497 (QB)
Delay, without more, does not constitute abuse of process. Continuing litigation with no intention to conclude can be abuse.
Grovit v Doctor (unreported) CA, 38 October 1993, Asturion Foundation v Alibrahim [2020] EWCA Civ 32, Icebird Ltd v Winegardner [2009] UKPC 24
Pre-action delay is highly relevant to assessing intention and whether putting proceedings on hold is an abuse.
Morgan Sindall v Capita & Sabre [2023] EWHC 166 (TCC)
Jameel abuse: The court can strike out a claim if it discloses no real or substantial tort and the cost outweighs the benefit. Vindication of legal rights is a factor.
Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] QB 946, Tinkler v Ferguson [2021] 4 WLR 27, Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror plc [2019] EMLR 1, Ames v Spamhaus Project Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 3409
Outcomes
The applications to strike out the claims were dismissed.
The court found insufficient evidence of abuse of process. While acknowledging significant delay, the judge considered the delay resulted from a combination of factors including inaction by both parties and the court. The court also found the prejudice to the claimant outweighed any prejudice to the defendants.
The Claimant's application to amend pleadings was granted, with one minor exception.
The amendment adding information about graffiti was deemed relevant to damages and would not significantly increase costs.