Wray, R (on the application of) v Attorney General [2015] EWHC 1647 (Admin)
[1]"to enable the Applicant to institute proceedings pursuant to the Slander of Women Act 1891 against Dr. ... Pudlowska and others." I enquired of Mrs Wray what it was that Dr Pudlowska, who apparently is a general practitioner, had said or written that could be said to have been actionable. Mrs Wray provided me with a copy of Markesinis and Deakin Tort Law, the fourth edition, where at page 606 it is indicated that imputation of certain medical conditions may amount to an actionable slander or libel. I enquired what it was that Dr Pudlowska had said in this particular case. Mrs Wray declined to tell me. That of itself indicates to me that there is a significant risk that this would be yet a further vexatious proceeding. It is also of note that she seeks to pursue Dr Pudlowska under a statute of 1891 that was repealed by the Defamation Act 2013. With the very greatest of respect to Mrs Wray the proposed proceedings, details of which to some limited extent are set out in the papers before me, fall into the very category of proceeding that led to this order in the first place. I am quite satisfied there is no arguable case for the Divisional Court to consider, and therefore I refuse permission for this application to be brought. Yes, thank you very much. MRS WRAY: Permission to appeal, your Honour. MR JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS: I am asked for permission to appeal. I decline that permission for all the reasons I have given in this short judgment. Thank you very much. Let me hand back the documents you handed up plus your textbook. MRS WRAY: Thank you, your Honour. MR JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS: Thank you very much.