NATHALIE RUTA v DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

Claims in libel and malicious falsehood require a clearly identified publication to a third party. Each publication constitutes a separate cause of action and must be pleaded with sufficient specificity. A claimant must also plead serious harm to reputation for defamation, and pecuniary damage and malice for malicious falsehood.

On an application for summary judgment, the court asks whether there is a realistic prospect of success and must avoid conducting a mini-trial. However, it should decide a short point of law where the evidence and argument are sufficient. A defective pleading may ordinarily be amended, but further amendment may be refused where repeated opportunities to comply have been ignored. A claim issued outside the one-year limitation period for defamation requires clear and compelling evidence before limitation will be disapplied.

The claimant brought proceedings against the Department for Work and Pensions for libel and malicious falsehood arising from an incident involving a DWP employee on 24 June 2020. Her pleaded publication was principally a letter sent to her on 2 July 2020, although she later sought to rely on an earlier report allegedly sent by the employee to the DWP’s Unacceptable Customer Behaviour Team.

The defendant applied to strike out the claim and obtain summary judgment. The issues included publication to a third party, limitation, serious harm, pecuniary damage, malice, compliance with the specialist pleading requirements for media claims, and whether further amendment should be permitted.

1. Disposition. The claim was struck out. The claimant had not pleaded a viable claim based on the 2 July 2020 letter because it was communicated only to her. Her alternative reliance on the 25 June 2020 report was neither properly pleaded nor brought within the one-year limitation period.
2. Pleading requirements. Under CPR 53.1(3) and PD53B, the claimant had to identify each publication, the precise words complained of, when, how and to whom they were published, and the facts relied on to establish serious harm. A letter of claim could not be read alongside the pleadings to supply missing essential elements. Each publication was a separate cause of action.
3. Summary judgment and strike out. The court applied the principles in Hughes v Colin Richards & Co [2004] EWCA Civ 266, Soo Kim v Young [2011] EWHC 1781 (QB) and The LCD Appeals [2018] EWCA Civ 220. The court must avoid a mini-trial, but may decide a short legal or construction point where the material is sufficient. Although amendment should normally be allowed if a defect can be cured, no further opportunity was justified after repeated warnings and failures to comply.
4. Substantive defects. The proposed amended pleading did not properly connect the alleged serious harm to the specific publication, and relied partly on possible future publications. The malicious falsehood claim lacked properly pleaded pecuniary damage and malice. Inaccuracy alone did not establish malice, which required detailed facts more consistent with malice than its absence.
5. Limitation. The proposed claim concerning the 25 June publication was out of time under section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980. The claimant had no reasonable prospect of satisfying the clear and compelling evidence requirement for disapplying limitation under section 32A.