![]() ![]() However it is plain that not every person will raise queries with Mama Group and Lovebox, and this was a very extensive publication. Mr Price is entitled to say that the evidence shows that queries raised with Mama Group and Lovebox were handled successfully by Mama Group and Lovebox, and that the email did ask persons concerned to contact Mama Group and Lovebox. The email did cause persons to react and raise issues with the Claimants, according to the witness evidence now before me. Secondly the evidence suggests that damage was caused. Although it does not necessarily follow that a person's intent to cause damage by a publication will always be successful, it is, to say the least, not particularly attractive to seek to strike out an action brought in respect of such a publication as an abuse of process on the basis that the proposed campaign was so unsuccessful that it did not achieve its purpose. ![]() This is because the email asked persons not to go to relevant festivals and venues and indeed the Twitter hashtag and email account both included the words "don't go to lovebox". First the email and the attached flyer were obviously intended to cause damage to Mama Group and Lovebox. "In my judgment this action is not an abuse of process for a number of reasons. The respondents were well within their rights to defend their reputation thus, there was a legitimate purpose for bringing the action. It was decided that the case in hand was not an abuse of process as the email and attachments in question obviously intended too and most probably did cause damage. This type of application is known as a Jameel 'abuse of process' application. Mr Justice Dingemans had to decide whether the prospect of a trial yielded any significant advantages over the disadvantages - principally the cost to the parties and the use of court resources. ![]() The email was circulated via Twitter and sent to high-profile parties including the local authority television, radio and music outlets members of parliament journalists and various organisations such as those for human rights and womens groups.Īfter limited pre-action correspondence the festival organisers sued for libel. The images were coupled with a description suggesting that the festival organisers had allowed for the use of excessive force by the contracted security personnel at the festival. The applicants then published their complaints in an email containing an attachment showing images of cuts and scars on a woman who had attended the same event. The police took no action in relation to the incident. The applicants took their complaint to the police. During the course of the incident one of the applicants fell over.Īllegations of force were made on both sides. This led to both applicants being restrained and removed from the festival by contracted security guards. Throughout the course of the day, one of the applicants became concerned as to the whereabouts of her mobile phone and subsequently engaged in a heated discussion with festival staff. The applicants had been attending the Lovebox music festival held in Victoria Park, London organised by the claimants/respondents. In the case of (1) Mama Group Ltd (2) Lovebox Festivals Ltd v (1) Daniel sinclair (2) Alexandra Joseph EWHC 2374, the applicants request for a libel claim to be stuck out as an 'abuse of process' was refused. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |