Full case report
Loughton Contracts Plc v Dun & Bradstreet Ltd
Reference  EWHC 1224 (QB)
Court Queen's Bench Division
Judge Gray J
Date of Judgment 25 May 2006
Defamation – Libel – Offer of amends – Summary judgment – Further information – Whether Claimant had accepted offer of amends – Whether Claimant entitled to further information as to the identity of publishees
From December 2004 until at least 31 May 2005, D published to a number of C’s customers a credit report about C which was incorrect and defamatory. Upon receiving notice that the report was wrong D corrected it and sent a revised copy to publishees. C sued for libel claiming general damages and reserving the right to plead special damage in the future. D made an unqualified offer of amends in respect of the pleaded case on general damage. Correspondence then followed about whether the offer as made had been accepted. C applied for summary judgment and sought further information.
(1) Whether the C was entitled to summary judgment;
(2) Whether the offer of amends had been accepted;
(3) If not whether it could still be accepted;
(4) Whether D should provide further information about the identity of the publishees.
(1) & (2) C was not entitled to summary judgment. D’s offer of amends was properly constituted and confined to C’s pleaded case on general damage: Nail v News Group Newspapers and Abu v MGN followed. By attaching conditions to the acceptance C had not accepted the offer.
(3) If the failure to accept the offer was held to be a rejection then s.4 Defamation Act 1996 would apply and D would have a complete defence. That would be unjust. The offer made by D in respect of general damage only was still open for acceptance.
(4) D did not have to provide the further information sought since it was only relevant to special damages, which were not in issue.
This re-affirms the guidance in Nail v News Group and Abu v MGN that a Claimant must set out its full case on damage in the letter of claim or the Particulars of Claim. A failure to do so and make further demands could be dangerous.
Foskett Marr Gadsby & Webb for the Claimant; Bird & Bird for the Defendant
More from 5RB
5RB is the pre-eminent set in the area for handling defamation, privacy, contempt and data protection matters. Interviewees praise the set for having great depth and quality of counsel, and note that it boasts many of the top barristers in the field. Get the lowdown here.
New 22nd Edition of Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, published by Sweet & Maxwell. Further info here.