Jerrard v Blyth & Ors
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- SIR DAVID EADY
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a defamation claim by a retired solicitor against multiple defendants for a post that mentioned a 'disbarred solicitor'. The court set aside the claim against the Third Defendant due to lack of proper service and awarded indemnity costs, noting the Claimant's solicitor's inappropriate conduct. The judgment also discussed the need for proper notification and the justification for indemnity costs in such scenarios.
Judgment
Sir David Eady :
The factual background
These prolonged and no doubt expensive libel proceedings arise out of one word published on or about 28 July 2011 on a website of interest mainly to those living in and around Liphook in Hampshire ( ). The post appeared to emanate from a user named Graeme Irwin. I understand that the offending word was removed about two months later. The Claimant, generally known as Don Jerrard, is a retired solicitor who has been active in local politics and was elected to the Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council in May 2011. Although he was not named in the post in question, there was reference to certain individuals who had been recently elected, including a “disbarred solicitor”, and it is the Claimant’s contention that some readers would have reasonably understood this to refer to him. The word “disbarred” was in due course replaced by the unobjectionable description “ www.liphook.co.uk former solicitor”. It is not disputed that “disbarred” would be a false description if it had indeed been understood as referring to the Claimant, since he had neither been “disbarred” nor “struck off” (which would be the more accurate terminology for any solicitor who had been deprived of the right to practise).
Although it may not have been read by very many readers (compared to the readership of a newspaper), nevertheless it can hardly be doubted that to allege of a solicitor that he has been “struck off” is defamatory and likely especially to cause damage to such a person standing for or elected to public office (at whatever level).
The Claimant told me that what he wanted primarily was a prompt withdrawal and apology. A letter of complaint was written in October 2011 to the Second Defendant, Jeremy Austin Olsen, suggesting that he must have been the author of the post because Graeme Irwin was the name of one of his work colleagues (who had himself already denied any responsibility) and, what is more, the author had revealed a detailed knowledge of the affairs of Liphook Parish Council. This, says the Claimant, would tend to point towards the Second Defendant (he having formerly been a member of the council himself).
The response of the Second Defendant’s solicitors on 24 November 2011 not only denied any responsibility on his part but also attributed the post to the First Defendant, who at the time of publication had been working on a temporary basis in the same office with the Second Defendant. What is more, he had expressly