![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Pirtek (UK) Ltd v Jackson (Rev1) [2017] EWHC 2834 (QB) (09 November 2017) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/2834.html Cite as: [2017] EWHC 2834 (QB) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
QUEEN''S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Pirtek (UK) Limited |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
Robert Jackson |
Defendant |
____________________
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Hearing date: 7 November 2017
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Warby :-
Factual and procedural background
“"I am going to be documenting here the failed Franchises around the country as part of my mission in life to expose the corrupt Pirtek UK Directors Kelvin Roberts, Alastair Wiggins, Paul Dunlop, Mark Wilton and Alex Mcnutt (sic)”"
The application
“"i) pursuant to CPR 12.3(1) judgment in default of the defendant filing an Acknowledgment of Service is entered on behalf of the claimant; or
ii) pursuant to CPR 53.2 and section 8(3) of the Defamation Act 1996 judgment is entered for the claimant and the claim is dealt with by summary disposal.”"
(1) A declaration pursuant to section 9 of the Defamation Act 1996 (“"the 1996 Act”") that the statements complained of are false and defamatory of Pirtek;
(2) An order that Mr Jackson publish or cause to be published a suitable correction and apology on the Website, the Twitter account and the Facebook account, or in the absence of agreement (within 7 days of the date of the Court’'s order) on the time, manner and form of such correction and apology, an order that Mr Jackson publish a summary of the court’'s judgment (including the court’'s declaration of falsity) on the Website, the Twitter account and the Facebook account;
(3) A permanent injunction restraining Mr Jackson from repeating the allegations or publishing new allegations to similar effect;
(4) An order requiring Mr Jackson to remove or cause to be removed the allegations published on the Website, the Twitter account, the Facebook account and anywhere else;
(5) An order for damages in the sum of £10,000;
(6) Indemnity costs to be summarily assessed.
Proceeding in the absence of the respondent
Judgment in default
Jurisdiction
“"(1) A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for defamation brought against a person who was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of unless the court is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher.”"
“"(2) For this purpose “"author”", “"editor”" and “"publisher”" have the following meanings …
“"author”" means the originator of the statement, but does not include a person who did not intend that his statement be published at all;
“"editor”" means a person having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it; and
“"publisher”" means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose business is issuing material to the public, or a section of the public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of that business.”"
These definitions are further explained in section 1(3), but in this case it is unnecessary to explore the detail of that subsection.
“"Subsequent to the conclusion of that litigation and the lapse of the harassment injunction, Mr Jackson launched a website at URL www.pirtek franchise.com (the “"Website”") on around 14 April 2016. On or around the same date he also set up a Twitter account with the user name “"@petenutt”" and a Facebook account (www.facebook.com/pirtek-uk-steal-homes). The primary purpose of these actions appears to be to create platforms from which to defame Pirtek and its directors. The content of the Website and the posts made on those accounts make it very clear that they are operated by Mr Jackson.”"
“"The Website (and the Twitter account) both referred to and provided a link to a BBC TV news ‘'special report’' which the writer said documented “"the extortion and corruption that caused my demise”" (my emphasis). That language, together with (i) the fact that the contact section of the Website invites visitors to “"Contact Bob”", and (ii) that when a response to my request for a contact address for Mr Jackson (purportedly written by Mr Jackson) was posted on the Website, it said that my request had been received via “"my website”", supports my belief and Pirtek’'s belief that the Website is operated or controlled by Mr Jackson, despite what he now claims.”"
The substantive claims
Libel
(1) That Pirtek has either knowingly or recklessly acted illegally and caused a grave risk to public safety by supplying unsuitable hoses to the aviation industry and by undertaking installation of hoses for which its employees were neither qualified nor trained; these actions may have caused fatal crashes by Spitfires;
(2) That Pirtek abused and extorted its franchisees, including Mr Jackson, with fraudulent sanctions; furthermore in Mr Jackson''s case its directors had conspired to ruin him and take his family home;
(3) That Pirtek is a shady company that practised tax avoidance.
“"(1) Section 1(1) of the 2013 Act has the effect of giving statutory status to Thornton, albeit also raising the threshold from one of substantiality to one of seriousness: no less, no more but equally no more, no less. Thornton has thus itself been superseded by statute.
(2) The common law presumption as to damage in cases of libel, the common law principle that the cause of action accrues on the date of publication, the established position as to limitation and the common law objective single meaning rule are all unaffected by s.1 (1).”"
“"18. The publication of the said words has gravely damaged the Claimant in its business reputation and goodwill and has caused the company serious financial loss.”"
…
23. By reason of the publication of the said words, the Claimant has suffered loss and damage:
PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGE
The Claimant has had to employ a PR consultant, Morgan Rossiter, to deal with various issues caused by the Defendant’'s publication, including liaising with the BBC in relation to its ‘'special report’' on the Defendant’'s allegations at a cost to the Claimant of £15,000.”"
None of this is contradicted.
Malicious falsehood
“"The Defendant has never denied that doing so was a breach of the franchise agreement and caused loss to the Claimant, merely issuing the lame complaint that other franchisees had also done it. Accordingly, the Defendant has not disputed and cannot dispute the basis for the Claimant’'s claim against him, which comprehensively refutes his allegations that the Claimant took action against him fraudulently and vindictively.”"
“"As he cannot have failed to realise, the Defendant’'s financial ruin and the loss of his home were caused entirely by the Defendant himself, who harassed officers of the Claimant, defended the resulting harassment action and money action on spurious grounds, pursued a hopeless appeal in the latter action and then refused to pay any costs despite court orders requiring him to do so.”"
Conclusions on default judgment
Summary disposal
“"9.— Meaning of summary relief.
(1) For the purposes of section 8 (summary disposal of claim) “"summary relief”" means such of the following as may be appropriate—
(a) a declaration that the statement was false and defamatory of the plaintiff;
(b) an order that the defendant publish or cause to be published a suitable correction and apology;
(c) damages not exceeding £10,000 or such other amount as may be prescribed by order of the Lord Chancellor;
(d) an order restraining the defendant from publishing or further publishing the matter complained of.
Costs