Full case report
Safeway v Tate
Reference  EWCA Civ 335;  QB 1120;  2 WLR 1377
Court Court of Appeal
Judge Otton LJ Mantell LJ Sir Ronald Waterhouse
Date of Judgment 18 Dec 2000
Defamation – Libel – CPR Part 24 – Summary Judgment – Right to Jury Trial – s.69 Supreme Court Act 1981
The claimant brought libel proceedings against the defendant in respect of allegations of fraud. The defence of justification was struck out. The judge granted the claimant’s application for summary judgment on the basis that the the defendant had no real prospect of succeeding on the issue of whether the words complained of were defamatory. The Defendant appealed.
Application of Part 24 to defamation claims and whether this was in conflict with the claimant’s right to jury trial under S. 69(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
Appeal allowed on the ground that the right to jury trial provided by s.69(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 was not overridden by the Civil Procedure Rules, and accordingly CPR Part 24.2 did not permit a judge sitting alone to determine questions of fact which should be decided by a jury.
The Court of Appeal in Alexander v Arts Council of Wales  1 W.L.R. 1840 pointed out that the basis of the decision in Safeway v Tate was that there was a material issue of fact fit to be placed before a jury, namely, whether the words were defamatory. If the judge had properly come to the conclusion that the words were only capable of having a defamatory meaning, there would be no issue to go to the jury and summary judgment could be granted.
Lawrence Jones for Claimant
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.