Cases

Hays Plc v Hartley

Held

(1) The claim was an abuse of process. D had informed C that he had no intention of publishing the allegations, and while there was nothing wrong in a claimant seeking an undertaking from a defendant not to repeat words complained of, as a matter of law a claimant was not entitled to an injunction unless there was good ground for apprehending a wrongful repetition. There was no legitimate aim in pursuing vindication or damages as D was not the originator of the words complained of, the action was brought on a publication to a single individual and the republication gave proper coverage to C's case, so any damages would likely be modest. Significantly, C had already received vindication both from the originators of the words complained of, in the form of the public statement, and from the newspaper in the form of the republication on its website of the public statement, such that continuing with the claim could not yield any real benefit for C.

(2) While there was some evidence that the claim against D was brought in order to obtain evidence that the employees had published the allegations, the purpose of the action was the entirely legitimate one of achieve vindication in respect of very serious allegations.

(3) Had the claim not been struck out, the privilege defences raised important issues which might be fact sensitive and would therefore not have been struck out or summary judgment granted to C in in respect of them.

Also