Cases

Bridle & Anor v Williams & Anor

Facts

The Claimants sued in defamation in respect of words allegedly uttered by the First Defendant, a Health and Safety Inspector, in the course of his employment with the Second Defendant, the Health and Safety Executive ('HSE'). During an inspection of asbestos removal at the University of Wales Lampeter the First Defendant was alleged to have said to two of the University's employees, whom the First Claimant was advising, that the First Claimant "is not a real professor as he claims" and that they "should not believe a word that he says." The words complained of were said to have damaged the First Claimant in his profession as an adviser on asbestos materials and to have caused the Second Claimant company special damage in the form of the loss of a contract for advice on asbestos removal worth £3,000.

The First Defendant denied uttering the words complained of but accepted he had had a conversation with the University employees about the First Claimant in which he had explained that there was a difference of opinion between him and the HSE on the risks associated with exposure to white asbestos. 

The Defendants applied for summary judgment and to have the action struck out on the basis that the occasion of the alleged slander was covered by qualified privilege and there was no evidence of malice and as an abuse of process on the grounds of improper collateral purpose, disproportionate time and expense and/or delay.  

         

Also