Queen’s Bench Division

Published June 7, 2007

Buckley v Dalziel and Another

Absolute privilege and immunity from suit were available to a person who provided information to the police to set in motion the process of an inquiry into possible illegality.

Mr Justice Eady so held in the Queen’s Bench Division on May 3, 2007, when granting an application for summary judgment under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules by James Stewart Dalziel against the claimant, Mrs Barbara Buckley, in her claim for defamation against Mr Dalziel and his wife, Mrs Melanie Dalziel. Mr Dalziel had made a witness statement and Mrs Dalziel had held three telephone conversations with Greater Manchester Police in which they had complained that Mrs Buckley, who was their neighbour, had arranged for boundary trees to be pruned in their absence.

Mrs Buckley claimed that Mr Dalziel was responsible for libel and that Mrs Dalziel was responsible for slander. Mr Dalziel argued that he was entitled to absolute privilege and immunity from suit.

HIS LORDSHIP said that following the guidance in Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office ([1999] 2 AC 177) it was necessary to protect those who provided evidence to the police in the course of an inquiry.

It was not unreasonable, in weighing the competing considerations, to give priority to the protection of those who provided such information.

The public policy considerations applied with equal validity to those who were witnesses and to those who were initial complainants.

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers