Best v Charter Medical of England Ltd

Reference: [2001] EWCA Civ 1588; [2002] EMLR 335

Court: Court of Appeal

Judge: Peter Gibson, Robert Walker & Keene LJJ

Date of judgment: 26 Oct 2001

Summary: Defamation - Slander - Requirement to set out precise words used in Particulars of Claim - Whether Claimant had pleaded words with sufficient precision - Whether Claimant could seek further information from the Defendant as to the precise words used - CPR Part 53 PD 2.4


Instructing Solicitors: Wiggin & Co for the Claimants; Le Brasseur J. Tickle for the Defendant


The Claimant brought slander proceedings claiming that on nine occasions he had been the subject of defamatory remarks by the Defendant. The Claimant could not set out precisely what had been said, as he had not been present, but he could plead the gist of what had been said from what he had learned subsequently. The Defendant applied to strike out the claim on the ground that without specifying the precise words used, the Claimant’s claim did not disclose a proper cause of action. The Claimant contended that it was sufficient to plead the nature of the defamatory remarks and to proceed to seek further information about the precise words from the Defendant.


What degree of precision was needed in relation to the setting out of the words complained of in order to disclose a cause of action in slander.


(1) In most cases of alleged slander, the Claimant must set out the words alleged to have been spoken in the Particulars of Claim with reasonable certainty – CPR Part 53 PD 2.4 considered; British Data Management plc -v- Boxer Commercial Removals plc [1996] EMLR 349 and Collins v Jones [1995] 1 QB 564 applied
(2) It was not sufficient to plead that the Defendant had made a statement “to the effect” of some defamatory meaning. Rosen v Alberta Motor Association Co (1994) 1 WWR 719 considered.
(3) The only exception to this strict rule was where a Claimant could satisfy the Court that the Defendant had on a specific occasion uttered a defamatory statement about the Claimant of a particular nature. If so, then the Claimant could show that he was not fishing and his claim would be allowed to proceed to the stage where he could seek further information from the Defendant about the precise words used. British Data Management (above) applied.


The case underlines the importance the Court attaches to the need for precision in the pleading of slander claims. Although CPR Part 53 PD 2.4 seemed to permit a degree of flexibility by stating that a Claimant should set out the words complained of “so far as possible”, the Court of Appeal held that the circumstances in which a Claimant will be excused a lack of precision will be rare indeed.