Summary Judgment In A Defamation, Malicious Falsehood & Data Protection Breach

Summary judgment is a remedy where a Judge is able to decide on the application of a party, whose case is so overwhelmingly strong on the papers/evidence in front of him/her, that there is no need to conduct a full trial at which witness and/or expert evidence is tested. The hurdle for an applicant in such an application is very high.

The case of Al-Ko Kober Ltd v Sambhi [2019] is a case where such an application was considered.

Al-Ko Kober Ltd v Sambhi

Case background

The Claimant (Al-Ko Kober Ltd) and the Defendant (Sambhi) both manufactured competing stabilisers for towing caravans. The Defendant published on his YouTube channel 84 videos claiming that the Claimant’s stabilisers were unsafe, were ‘killers’, ran a business ‘scamming’ customers and recklessly endangered the lives of the public. The videos further depicted crashes involving caravans in support of such allegations.

In 2017, the Court had already granted an interim injunction in respect of malicious falsehood and breach of the Data Protection Act. An interim injunction is an injunction that can be obtained early on in a case. It essentially stops any further damage from being caused. In this case, it would have prevented the Defendant from publishing any further videos. There are two negative aspects to such an injunction:

1. The first is that the Claimant will be locked into proceedings until either settlement or conclusion of the case, if the Claimant wants the injunction to remain in force; and
2. The second is that the Claimant must provide to the Defendant a cross undertaking in damages (i.e. if the injunction should not have been granted as the Claimant lost the case, if the Defendant has suffered damage as a result of the injunction being in place, he can apply to Court for the Claimant to pay compensation in respect of the same).

The Court found that the claims made by the Defendant were based on a false premise in that the Defendant claimed that the Claimant’s product prevented ‘snaking’ (i.e. swaying of the caravan whilst driving) but the Claimant’s marketing material made no such claim, instead claiming that it would only help reduce swaying.

In respect of a breach of the Data Protection Act, the Court concluded that there was no realistic prospect of the Defendant being able to meet the criteria required for being able to lawfully publish personal data. Accordingly, the Court granted the Claimant summary judgment in the application.

This case is interesting as it demonstrates that:

1. There is often a close inter-relationship between defamation, malicious falsehood and data protection legislation;
2. Whilst difficult to obtain, it is still possible to obtain summary judgment in a case of this kind; and
3. Most importantly, people should be careful what they post online.