Rufus v Elliot
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Maurice Kay |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 759 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 08 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | A2/2013/3675 |
[2014] EWCA Civ 759
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE DINGEMANS)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Maurice Kay
Lady Justice Rafferty
A2/2013/3675
Mr D Price QC (instructed by David Price Solicitors and Advocates) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented.
In this renewed application for permission to appeal, permission having been refused on the papers by Sir Stephen Sedley, we are invited to say that the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success.
We have considered the written submissions. It is the view of both of us that the proposed appeal satisfies that test. We think it at least arguable that the judge below was wrong in relation to the meaning of the disputed words, and in relation to their potentially defamatory nature.
In the circumstances, it is not necessary for us to say any more.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mir Shakil-ur-rahman v Ary Network Ltd and Another
...would convey to an ordinary reasonable reader (or listener) and then determining whether that meaning is defamatory ( per Warby J in Rufus v. Elliot, supra at [17] and see PD53 14 The principles that apply to the determination of that single meaning are well established. I direct myself in ......