Judge Awards Win to Effingham Charity in Defamation Case

Published on: 2 Jul, 2019
Updated on: 4 Jul, 2019

The High Court sits at the Royal Courts of Justice

By Chris Jewers

A High Court judge has ruled in favour of members an Effingham charity in a defamation case.

James Nicholls had claimed five trustees of the Effingham Village Recreational Trust (EVRT) had sent him a letter that accused him of being a danger to children.

Judge Davison heard the case on June 26 and has now ruled that there were no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, which would be dismissed because it has no real prospect of success and the claim form was not served during its period of validity.

Mr Nicholls was also ordered to pay the defendants £2,500 towards their £4,000 legal fees which, during the hearing, it was stated that the defendants had used EVRT funds to pay.

Defendant Liz Hogger told The Dragon later: “I am pleased the judge’s decision has vindicated the action taken by the EVRT Trustees in May 2017. The order strikes out Mr Nicholls’ claim against the trustees and states there were no reasonable grounds for the claim and it had no real prospect of success.

“His claim related to a private letter sent to him by the EVRT board. The letter certainly did not make the allegation against him that Mr Nicholls claimed at the hearing. It was not published by us, and could not be considered defamatory in any way.

“The EVRT board supported us in defending this claim to protect the right of trustees to take action as they think fit in the best interests of the charity, having taken legal advice when appropriate. This is fully in line with Charity Commission guidance.

“We are all volunteers with a public service ethos, who gave up our time over many years to manage the King George V Hall and Fields for the benefit of Effingham residents. I hope the outcome in this case will give current and future trustees the confidence to know they can take responsible action when necessary without fear of litigation.”

Mr Nicholls had told the judge the defendants sent him a letter claiming he was a danger to children and this implied he was a paedophile, thus defaming him.

He said all he wanted was to be exonerated, and would be satisfied with an apology, a retraction and for the claim to never be repeated again.

The defendants denied implying Mr Nicholls had harmed children, and argued that because the letter was never published it was not legally defamatory.

The judge, in his 2,000-word ruling, included a suggestion that read: “I will add a postscript. The claimant said that he wanted an apology, a retraction and a promise not to repeat the words he complained of. (There was also mention of a contribution to his costs of £500.)

“I was shown a draft letter (marked “without prejudice” but, on close examination, not, in fact, privileged) dated 10 June 2019 in which the defendants, having met with the claimant, offered clarification of the letter of 22 May 2017 and an explanation of how it came to be written.

“It acknowledged the claimant’s distress. It acknowledged that the letter could have been better phrased. It repeated that it had not been published and never would be. It ended with an expression of the hope that the matter could be ‘put behind us’.

“That letter came about as close to meeting the claimant’s goals as could reasonably be expected from the defendants. I suggest that, notwithstanding the outcome of this application, the defendants consider signing that letter and sending it to the claimant.”

James Nicholls having received the written judgement, commented: “I am so sorry to not to have won this case.”

Despite the judge’s comments, he claimed that the defendants had won only “on a technicality [because] the papers were not served correctly”.