PracticeDefamation - rules of court conferring power to enter summary judgment - not overriding statutory right to trial by jurySafeway Plc v Tate: CA (Otton and Mantell LJJ and Sir Ronald Waterhouse):18 December 2000The defendant displayed a placard outside the claimant's stores.

The claimant complained that the words written on the placard were defamatory and brought an action for damages and an injunction.

The judge held that he had a discretion under CPR rule 24.2 to enter summary judgment, notwithstanding that s.69 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provided for an unqualified right to a jury trial, and that, since the defendant had no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim and in the light of the costs of a jury trial and the unfair adverse publicity which the claimant would suffer on a successful trial whatever the outcome, it was right to avoid a jury trial.

He accordingly entered summary judgment.

The defendant appealed.

Harry Boggis-Rolfe (instructed by the Bar Pro Bono Unit) for the defendant.

Adam Wolanski (instructed by Lawrence Jones) for the plaintiff.

Victoria Sharp (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) as amicus curiae.Held, allowing the appeal, that the broad general power conferred upon the Lord Chancellor by section 4 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 to reform the rules of practice and procedure did not enable consequential delegated legislation to repeal or amend primary legislation which embodied a fundamental, as opposed to a procedural, right such as trial by jury; and that the power to award summary judgment under CPR rule 24.2 did not therefore override the right to trial by jury in a defamation action conferred by under section 69(1) of the 1981 Act.

(WLR)