header-logo header-logo

04 February 2022
Issue: 7965 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 4 February 2022

Defamation

Bashar v Thompson and another [2022] EWHC 25 (QB), All ER (D) 23 (Jan)

The Queen’s Bench Division ruled on preliminary issues which arose on the claimant father’s claim that the first defendant, a social worker employed by the second defendant council, had made two defamatory statements in a Family Assessment Report written in relation to a child (A) from his former partner’s previous relationship, following the claimant’s application for a child arrangements order to allow his son (N) to live with him rather than the former partner. The first defendant had stated that she had ‘serious concerns to his extreme views’ and ‘serious concerns to his value base and views’ which in her view were ‘extreme’. While the court rejected the claimant’s submission that the above statements had been tantamount to saying he was an ‘extremist’, which in turn could have been equated to ‘terrorist’ or ‘jihadist’, both statements were Chase level one and defamatory. The reasonable reader would not necessarily infer from the statements that the claimant had been prepared

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll