Summary judgment

Spencer v Sillitoe (CA SJ 1 November)

In defamation proceedings, the claimant alleged that at a confidential meeting between himself and the defendant, the defendant falsely recorded that the claimant had threatened to act to his employers’ detriment. The defendants raised a defence of qualified privilege and were granted summary judgment on the grounds that the claimant could not establish malice. In allowing the claimant’s appeal, the judge was held to be wrong to have granted summary judgment. Qualified privilege was not an available defence if the statement had been made maliciously. It was clear that if the note did not represent what the claimant had said, then the only explanation was that the defendant had fabricated it. Evidence of untruth and malice had been raised by the claimant. That evidence might or might not be believed, but it was still evidence. Where there were material issues of fact in a libel case, s69 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 entitled a party to have those issues decided by a jury. CPR Part 24 should not deny the claimant his right to have issues of fact decided by a jury. The correct defence should have been justification, not qualified privilege.