Broxton v McClelland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1996 |
| Date | 14 November 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Before Lord Justice Staughton, Lord Justice Swinton Thomas and Lord Justice Judge
Court of Appeal
Libel - whether proper to admit background evidence
It was perfectly proper for a judge to admit evidence as to the ongoing dispute between the financial backer of a plaintiff in a libel action and the defendants so as to show the backer's motivation in being involved in the case.
Without that information, the jury would not have been able to make an informed judgment as to the reality of the alleged injury to the plaintiff's feelings by the publication of the original libel to one Belgian living in Spain who was unknown to the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeal so held by majority (Lord Justice Staughton dissenting) in a reserved judgment in dismissing an appeal brought by the plaintiff, Fiona Broxton, against the decision of Mr Justice Alliott and a jury on February 1, 1996 when he gave judgment for the first defendant, Arden Guy McClelland, the group managing director of the second defendant, Maccorp.
Mr Isaac Jacob and Mr Patrick Moloney for the plaintiff; Mr Patrick Milmo, QC and Mr William Bennett for the defendants.
LORD JUSTICE SWINTON THOMAS said that the plaintiff, who was then Avril Fiona Shevill, did a number of student jobs during a gap year before university. In the summer of 1989 she was employed as a cashier by a company called Chequepoint Sarl.
The first defendant had also been employed by Chequepoint. He left them in 1988 and set up a company called Maccorp which traded as a competitor in the bureau de change business. From that point onwards there had been rivalry, bad blood and much litigation between the two organisations.
On September 19, 1989 Chequepoint's premises were raided by the French police. A number of the employees, including the plaintiff were arrested. Some convictions followed but the plaintiff was completely innocent.
The plaintiff left the employment of Chequepoint on September 23, having worked for them for just under two months. On September 27 an article appeared in the French newspaper, France Soir which was libellous of the plaintiff.
On October 17, 1989 Chequepoint and the plaintiff commenced proceedings in England against France Soir and on November 23, the newspaper published a retraction and apology. France Soir had a circulation of about 250 copies in England. There was no evidence at the trial from any person who had read the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lifestyle Equities CV v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd
...His judgment contains a helpful and detailed review of earlier authority. He set out a passage from the judgment of Simon Brown LJ in Broxton v McClelland [1995] EMLR 485. The passage is at pages 497 to 498 and is quoted in paragraph 10 of Teare J's judgment. I will read the passage which ......
-
Harlow Higinbotham (formerly BWK) v Wipaporn Teekhungam
...by feelings of personal animosity, vindictiveness or general antagonism towards his opponent is nothing to the point: Ablyazov [10]; Broxton v McClelland [1995] EMLR 485, 497–498per Simon Brown LJ; iv) Accordingly, the institution of proceedings with an ulterior motive is not of itself enou......
-
McLaughlin & others v London Borough of Lambeth
...on by the Defendants in support of the application to strike out the claim. ABUSE OF PROCESS BY PURSUIT OF A COLLATERAL PURPOSE 54 In Broxton v McLelland [1995] EMLR 485 Simon Brown LJ set out the central principles emerging from the case law: (1) Motive and intention as such are irrelevant......
-
Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...the proceedings was irrelevant if the action was not otherwise an abuse of process. As Simon Brown LJ had said in Broxton v McLelland [1995] EMLR 485, 497–8, ‘Accordingly, the institution of proceedings with an ulterior motive is not of itself enough to constitute an abuse: an action is onl......