Mireskandari v Centaur Media Plc

On an application to strike out or obtain summary judgment in a libel claim, the court may consider the pleaded meanings at their highest. If the claimant has no real prospect of defeating justification, judgment may be entered without finally deciding the meanings or whether they are defamatory. A claimant must plead the defamatory meanings attributed to the words, rather than merely meanings which are not defamatory. Findings of dishonesty by a disciplinary tribunal, together with the absence of evidence showing a realistic prospect of successfully appealing those findings, may establish that a justification defence cannot realistically be defeated.

The claimant brought a libel action against the publisher of The Lawyer concerning articles reporting Court of Appeal proceedings involving his former firm, disciplinary allegations, and allegations of fraud and misuse of client money. The defendant applied to strike out the claim under the Civil Procedure Rules or alternatively for summary judgment on the basis that the claim had no real prospect of success.

The claimant did not appear or provide evidence explaining how he could defeat a justification defence. The court considered the effect of adverse findings made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which had upheld 23 of 25 charges and found dishonesty. The central issue was whether the claim could proceed in circumstances where justification could not realistically be defeated.

1. The application succeeded. Judgment was entered for the defendant on the whole claim and the action was dismissed.

2. The claimant’s pleading was unsatisfactory because it included meanings which were not defamatory. The Civil Procedure Rules require a claimant to plead the defamatory meanings attributed to the words complained of.

3. As to the allegation concerning sexual harassment and discrimination, the claimant had no prospect of defeating the defences of absolute privilege and justification. The publication restated what the Court of Appeal had said in its judgment.

4. It was unnecessary to rule finally on the meanings capable of being conveyed by the publications or on whether they were defamatory. Taking the pleaded meanings at their highest, there was no real prospect of the claimant defeating justification. The conclusion rested on the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s adverse findings and the absence of evidence showing any real prospect of success in the claimant’s pending appeal.

5. The court did not need to determine the defendant’s alternative submission that the action was an abuse of the process of the court.

First-instance decision. The judgment records that the claimant had appealed the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision under Solicitors Act 1974 s.49, but that appeal was separate from the present libel proceedings.