Price v Watkins

A libel claim must identify a viable publication by the defendant to a third party. An inferred publication may be pleaded only in very exceptional circumstances, supported by uncontradicted evidence; speculative publication is insufficient. Communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or conducting litigation may be protected by privilege.

The court may refuse to extend the one-year limitation period for defamation where the claimant fails to act promptly and the defendant would suffer substantial forensic prejudice. A claim may be struck out where its defects cannot be cured by amendment. Contractual obligations cannot generally be enforced by a non-party, and English law recognises no free-standing claim based on a failure to act in good faith.

The claimant brought proceedings alleging defamation, breach of contract, breach of confidence and trust, negligence, breach of duty of care and related wrongdoing. The defamation claim concerned a witness statement written by the defendant in 2012, which the claimant said he discovered in Dutch copyright proceedings in September 2017.

The defendant applied under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b), arguing that the claim disclosed no reasonable grounds, was inadequately pleaded, was time-barred, involved privileged publication and was an abuse of process. The central issues were whether publication had been sufficiently pleaded, whether time should be extended, and whether the additional causes of action were legally recognisable.

1. Strike out. The court may strike out a statement of case where it discloses no reasonable grounds or is an abuse of process. It should not do so where there is a serious issue of fact requiring a trial, and should consider whether a defect can be cured by amendment. The claimant’s pleading failed to identify the publication, defamatory meaning and facts supporting aggravated or exemplary damages. Those defects could have been amended, but the fundamental defect concerning publication could not.
2. Publication and privilege. Publication to the claimant’s solicitor was privileged as a solicitor-client communication and as a communication for actual or contemplated litigation. Publication to the person who carried the statement to the solicitor was similarly protected. The claimant could not show by uncontradicted evidence that any non-privileged publication had occurred. His case was therefore speculative and fell outside the very exceptional category in which inferred publication may be allowed.
3. Limitation. Even if non-privileged publication could be shown, the claimant had to establish an arguable case for extending the one-year limitation period. Applying the principles in Nugent v Willers [2019] UKPC 1, the defendant’s age, deteriorating health and resulting forensic disadvantage outweighed any prejudice to the claimant. The claimant had also waited nearly a year after discovering the statement before issuing proceedings. It was inequitable to extend time.
4. Other claims. The claimant was not a party to the relevant contracts and showed no basis for enforcing their obligations personally. English law recognises no free-standing cause of action for failure to act in good faith. No misrepresentation, confidential information or arguable duty of care had been pleaded.
5. The claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a). The court did not need to determine the alternative abuse-of-process argument.