HIGH COURT APPEALS CENTRE
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
ON APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF DEPUTY MASTER SKINNER KC
DATED 13 JUNE 2024
Claim No. KB-2023-004621
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
DEJAUN WILSON |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
STROUD GREEN HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE LTD |
Respondent |
____________________
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Hearing date: 17 June 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Hill:
Introduction
The factual background
The legal framework
"50. An appellate court will only interfere with a discretionary evaluation where an Appellant can identify one or more of the follows errors:
(i) a misdirection in law;
(ii) some procedural unfairness or irregularity;
(iii) that the Judge took into account irrelevant matters;
(iv) that the Judge failed to take account of relevant matters; or
(v) that the Judge made a decision which was "plainly wrong".
51. Error type (v)…means a decision which has exceeded the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible".
The grounds of appeal in overview
Ground 2
"Please find attached a section from the above book dealing with the issue of limitation in a defamation context. I attach it because it is relevant to the issue of expedition in a claim to vindicate reputation".
"It is normally anticipated that a victim of defamation will pursue, and will want energetically to pursue, the vindication of his good name. That is why the limitation period in actions for defamation is limited to one year".
"It is not unusual for defamation claims to be stayed pending mediation or some other form of alternative dispute resolution, as is common in other types of civil litigation: the policy of encouraging settlement supersedes even the imperative of progressing defamation cases to trial as expeditiously as possible".
"…the need for swift progress in defamation litigation will be a matter of particular concern to the court"
"Much will depend on…how far the defamation action has progressed".
"However, I also note that…there has been in the intervening period no letter of claim written or other opportunity for the defendant to respond. So, as things now stand, the position is that there is a claim form, there are no particulars of claim and the defendant has still not been informed of the parameters of the case to which it will be required to respond".
Ground 5
"If proceedings are started to comply with the statutory time limit before the parties have followed the procedures in this Practice Direction or the relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should apply to the court for a stay of the proceedings while they so comply".
Ground 6
Conclusion