Full case report
Webster v British Gas Services Ltd
Reference  EWHC 1188 (QB)
Court Queen's Bench Division
Judge Tugendhat J
Date of Judgment 23 May 2003
Defamation – Libel – Slander – Qualified privilege – Malice – Malicious Falsehood – Summary judgment -Part 24
The Claimant installed a heating system in a flat. Shortly after the owner of the leasehold requested a maintenance contract with the Defendant for the system. One of the Defendant’s engineers inspected the system, following which the Defendant refused to enter into the maintenance contract, on the ground that the system failed to meet their minimum standards. The Claimant brought an action for slander on the basis of what the Defendant’s engineer had said concerning the system and an action for libel regarding a letter that the Defendant wrote to the Claimant. The Claimant also claimed malicious falsehood in relation to both the engineer’s words and the letter.
Whether there was any real prospect of the Claimant successfully resisting the Defendant’s claim of qualified privilege.
The plea of malice had no prospect of success. Accordingly, the Claimant had no prospect of defeating the defence of qualified privilege, therefore the claim was bound to fail and there was no reason why the case should proceed to trial.
This was another case where a malice plea was summarily disposed of for failing to disclose a viable case. The Court reiterated that malice was a serious allegation tantamount to a plea of fraud.
Bar Pro Bono Unit for the Claimant. DLA 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.