Bailey & Anor v Kordowski

A defence to a libel claim must disclose a properly particularised and legally sustainable ground for defending the claim. General denials, assertions that words are true or honest comment, and reliance on privilege without the required particulars do not satisfy the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 or Practice Direction 53. Where the pleaded and supporting material plainly discloses no reasonable grounds for defence, the court may strike out the defence under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and enter final judgment. Qualified privilege requires the necessary reciprocal duty and interest. A Reynolds public-interest defence also requires publication in the public interest and reasonable steps directed to verifying the material. Personal grievances published without adequate checking do not meet those requirements. Abuse of process may be found where proceedings are used to impose unrecoverable costs on the claimant.

The claimants, a firm of solicitors and one of its solicitors, brought a libel claim concerning allegations published on the defendant’s website. The allegations accused the solicitor and firm of lying in court, harming a client’s children and conducting litigation for financial gain rather than in the client’s interests.

The defendant served several documents described as defences and witness statements. The claimants applied under CPR 3.4(2)(a) to strike out the defence and obtain final judgment, an injunction and permission to seek an assessment of damages. The central issues were whether the material disclosed any reasonable ground based on truth, fair comment or privilege, and whether further time to amend should be allowed.

1. Disposition. The defendant’s defence was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a). Final judgment was entered for the claimants, with an injunction restraining republication of the words complained of or similar defamatory words. The claimants were permitted to apply for damages to be assessed and were awarded their costs.
2. Pleading requirements. Under CPR 16.5(2), a defendant denying an allegation must state the reasons for the denial. Practice Direction 53 paras 2.5 and 2.6 require a defendant relying on truth or fair comment to identify the defamatory meaning being justified or defended and to give particulars of the matters relied on. Paragraph 2.7 imposes corresponding requirements for privilege. The defendant’s general denials, copied statutory text and witness statements did not provide the necessary particulars.
3. Privilege and public interest. The court found it plain and obvious that no common-law qualified privilege existed because the necessary reciprocal duty and interest were absent. A Reynolds defence was equally unavailable. The publication concerned personal grievances, was not shown to be in the public interest, and had been made without adequate checking. The material relied on by the defendant would not have improved the position even if it had been verified.
4. Abuse of process. The defendant was using the proceedings to cause the claimants to incur costs which he asserted they could not recover from him. His motive was immaterial. The court therefore rejected the request for further time and treated the application to admit the later documents as wholly without merit.