Cases

Cray v Hancock & Another

Held

Finding for the Claimant and dismissing the Counterclaim: (1) the letter and fax had both been sent to the firm without restriction as to who could view them; the First Defendant was therefore responsible for publication to the 3 other people who saw them; (2) they alleged systematic dishonest overcharging by the Claimant; (3) the plea of justification wholly failed to meet this charge; the defence did not even establish the lower meaning relied upon in the Defence; (4) the acts complained of were, as the First Defendant had admitted, "oppressive, unreasonable and menacing", and represented a course of conduct that amounted to harassment; (5) the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities (as explained by Lord Nicholls in In re H [1996] AC 563, 586) and on this basis the Court was satisfied that Mr Hancock was behind the anonymous acts complained of; (6) £9,000 for the libel claims and £10,000 for the harassment; (7) there was no evidence to support the Counterclaim.

Also