Woods v Chaleff & Ors, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, May 28, 1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1522

Resolution Date:May 28, 1999
Issuing Organization:Civil Division
Actores:Woods v Chaleff & Ors

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 99/6196/1IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION(MR JUSTICE GRAY) Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Thursday 28 May 1999 B e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE OTTON LORD JUSTICE WALLER - - - - - - BONNIE LOUISE WOODS Claimant/Appellant - v - 1. SHEILA CHALEFF 2. GRAEME WILSON 3. CATHY SPROULE 4. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS EDUCATION COLLEGE INC Defendants/Respondents - - - - - - (Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD Tel: 0171 421 4040 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - MR P MOLONEY QC (Instructed by Messrs Allen & Overy, London EC4M 9QQ) appeared on behalf of the Appellant. MR M TUGENDHAT QC and MS A MARZEC (Instructed by Hodkin & Co, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 2ND) appeared on behalf of the Respondents. - - - - - - J U D G M E N T (As approved by the Court) - - - - - - ©Crown Copyright Friday 28 May 1999 JUDGMENTLORD JUSTICE OTTON: The request having been made for an order under section 4 and the application having been granted, this judgment will be a good deal shorter than it might otherwise have been. The matter comes before us on the last day of term. This is a libel action which is fixed for trial before Eady J and a jury on Tuesday 8 June 1999 with an estimate of some three to four weeks. On 26 May 1999, the matter came before Gray J when he gave the plaintiff leave further to amend her reply in order to add a new subparticular to paragraph 2(10) of the re-re-reamended reply. Paragraph 2(10) avers, and it comes into the case as a particular of malice in answer to the defence of qualified privilege that: "The Defendants knew that the Plaintiff's criticisms were true and justified, or else did not care whether they are justified or not:"By the application the plaintiff seeks to add a further particular, three particulars already having been given in an earlier part of the pleading history. The relevant parts of the relevant amendment before Gray J were: "(d) In or about 1985 to 1988 Mr Russell Miller was followed and harassed in the UK and in the USA (including Los Angeles) as set out....."There is then a reference to various pleadings and documents. "....All the Defendants either knew that Mr Miller was followed and harassed as aforesaid, or could have found out if they had cared whether the Plaintiff's leaflet was true or false."The proposed amendment before Gray J cross referenced two witness statements of Mr Miller and Mr...

To continue reading