Cynthia Nkiruka Tooley v Times Media Limited

Summary disposal in media litigation requires separate analysis of viability, abuse of process and pleading conformity. A failed attempt to rely on a misuse of private information or breach of confidence claim for an interim injunction does not, without more, make a viable substantive claim an abuse of process at trial. Distinct privacy and defamation claims may proceed together. Where a pleading defect may be cured, the court should consider a proportionate opportunity to amend, including a proposed draft. A defamation claim may proceed where the article, read as a whole, could convey that the claimant herself made baseless accusations against the police. But a claim based on allegations about a relationship and an inquiry finding them unsubstantiated may be struck out where the pleaded meaning is plainly defensible as true. Malicious falsehood requires pleaded facts capable of supporting an inference of malice.

The claimant, acting in person, brought claims for misuse of private information, breach of confidence, defamation and malicious falsehood arising from a newspaper article published on 8 February 2025. The defendant applied for summary judgment and strike-out. The claimant sought permission to rely on a third draft of amended particulars. The judgment records the earlier MAC Judgment, [2026] EWHC 675 (KB), concerning interim relief, and the related Family Judgment, [2025] EWFC 81(B), concerning publication of family-proceedings material and the relevant court orders.

The court considered whether the privacy and confidence claims were abusive or inadequately pleaded, whether the defamation claim had a realistic prospect of success, and whether the malicious falsehood claim pleaded facts capable of supporting malice. The defamation claim was divided between reporting about the police and reporting allegations concerning the claimant’s husband and a university inquiry.

The defendant’s application was allowed in part. The applications were dismissed as to misuse of private information, breach of confidence and the Police-Action part of the defamation claim. The remainder of the defamation claim was struck out, and summary judgment was entered for the defendant on malicious falsehood.

1. Framework. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 24.3 required no real prospect of success and no compelling reason for trial. Abuse-based strike-out under rule 3.4(2)(b) involved first deciding whether there was an abuse and then whether strike-out was just and proportionate. A proposed amendment had to be arguable, coherent, properly particularised and supported by evidence establishing a factual basis: Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v James Kendall Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 33.
2. Privacy and confidence. The MPI claim was viable. The starting point identified in ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5 [2022] AC 1158 supported a fact-specific inquiry into privacy and countervailing expression rights. McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714 [2008] QB 73 concerned the use of an MPI claim to avoid defamation’s prior-restraint rule in an interim injunction application. It did not justify striking out a viable substantive MPI or BOC claim at trial. The distinct torts could proceed side by side without a binary dominant-purpose analysis. The BOC claim also required clarification, but the claimant was given an opportunity to plead and evidence how the video was communicated and what words were used. The defendant retained liberty to apply to strike out that claim on the papers.
3. Defamation. The Police-Action part had a realistic prospect of success. The article had to be read as a whole, and an allegation that the claimant accused the police of bullying could reflect adversely on the claimant as the accuser, rather than only on the police. The husband-related part was plainly defensible as true in the pleaded sense and was struck out under rule 3.4(2)(a).
4. Malicious falsehood. The claimant had not pleaded facts from which malice could be inferred. The reporter’s presence at an earlier hearing and alleged knowledge of later undertakings did not provide a sufficient foundation. Summary judgment was therefore entered under rule 24.3.
5. Directions and costs. The claimant was directed to file a new application to amend, draft particulars and witness statement by 4pm on 28 August 2026. The new pleading had to remove the struck-out defamation allegations and malicious falsehood claim, identify the words relied on concerning mental state and personal circumstances, and particularise the communication of the video. Costs were ordered to be costs in the case.

This was a first-instance decision on the defendant’s summary disposal application. The judgment records the earlier MAC Judgment, [2026] EWHC 675 (KB) , refusing interim injunctive and Norwich Pharmacal relief, and the related Family Judgment, [2025] EWFC 81(B), concerning publication of family-proceedings material.