Culla Park Ltd. & Ors v Richards & Ors

Summary judgment may be granted where the defendant has no realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim and no compelling reason for trial remains. The court must avoid a mini-trial, but may decide factual issues where a properly directed tribunal could not reasonably find for the defendant. In deciding whether defamation proceedings should be tried by judge or jury, prolonged examination includes careful reading of relevant documents and documents likely to be used in cross-examination. The question is whether that examination can conveniently be undertaken with a jury, having regard to trial length, cost, practical difficulties and the complexity of the documents. Where overlapping issues create substantial confusion or inconvenience, trial by judge alone may be ordered.

The claim concerned alleged defamatory signs displayed by neighbouring defendants, alternatively constituting injurious falsehood. The claimants sought summary judgment on the defamation claims and an order that the action be tried by judge alone. Issues included publication, reference, meaning, limitation, the availability of substantive defences, malice, falsity and special damages. The court also considered the effect of struck-out defences and the need for documentary examination at trial.

1. Mode of trial. The court held that the action required prolonged examination of documents. This included careful analysis of the statements of case, correspondence, documents relevant to malice, evidence concerning publication and falsity, and material relevant to special damages and causation. Under Supreme Court Act 1981, s 69, the relevant question was whether that examination could conveniently be undertaken with a jury.
2. Relevant considerations included the additional length and cost of a jury trial, practical difficulties in handling documents, the position of litigants in person, the risk of confusion caused by overlapping issues of malice and falsity, and the possibility that the trial would run beyond the legal term. The court concluded that examination could not conveniently be conducted with a jury. The public-policy emphasis against jury trial and the need for detailed analysis also supported trial by judge alone.
3. Summary judgment. The court applied the Part 24 test. The claimants had to show that each defendant had no realistic prospect of successfully defending the relevant claim and that there was no other compelling reason for trial. The court was not to conduct a mini-trial, but factual material was to be taken at its highest unless demonstrably false.
4. There was no viable substantive defence. The pleaded allegations were defamatory; admissions established publication in most instances; justification was inadequately particularised and unsupported, qualified privilege did not apply to publication to the world at large, and fair comment was unavailable because the allegations were factual.
5. Summary judgment was therefore granted on the libel claims, except for publication 2B by Mr and Mrs Kristaps. The claims in injurious falsehood still required proof of falsity. Any claim for aggravated damages required proof of malice. Special damages remained subject to examination, particularly on causation.
6. The court also directed attention to the lowest common denominator relevant to damages, as discussed in Cassell v Broome [1972] AC 1027.