High Court makes preliminary ruling in Carole Cadwalladr libel case
Banks v Cadawalladr [2019] EWHC 3451 (QB)
This case discusses the preliminary issue as to meaning in a defamation claim brought by the Claimant in respect of four publications. The Claimant is a British businessman who is a prominent figure in the campaign for the United Kingdom to leave the EU. The Defendant is an author, investigative journalist and features writer. The four publications where meaning is to be determined include two public talks and two tweets.
The judge held the following meanings:
the Ted Talk and the First Tweet meant: On more than one occasion Mr. Banks told untruths about a secret relationship he had with the Russian Government in relation to acceptance of foreign funding of electoral campaigns in breach of the law on such funding;
The Convention Speech meant: Mr. Banks had been offered money by the Russians and that there were substantial grounds to investigate whether he would be willing to accept such funds in violation of prohibitions on foreign electoral funding;
The Second Tweet meant: There is a proper basis to investigate whether Mr. Banks’ contact with Russia involved any criminal conduct just as the Italian government is investigating Lega’s contact with the Russians.
Judge wins summary judgment against harassing litigant in High Court
Oliver v Shaikh [2019] EWHC 3389 (QB)
In this case, the claimant was a judge of the Upper Tribunal. The defendant was a former trainee cardiac physiologist who had been dismissed by a hospital trust for gross misconduct and prohibited by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) from working with children or vulnerable adults. In 2014, the claimant chaired a UT panel that dismissed the defendant’s appeals against the DBS’s decisions. In other proceedings, the defendant was found to have harassed 29 employees of the trust through, inter alia, publishing malicious and abusive content online.
In 2016, the claimant became aware of a website containing a series of accusations that he was corrupt, took bribes in court and fabricated judgments. A comments section on the website contained offensive and abusive messages, highly intimidating threats, and incitement to attacks against the claimant and his family. It also contained the claimant’s home address and other personal information.
The claimant applied for the defence and counterclaim to be struck out, and to be granted summary judgment.
Held: The defence and counterclaim were struck out pursuant to all three limbs of CPR r.3.4(2). Neither the defence nor the counterclaim complied with the CPR. Although the defendant was unrepresented, that did not absolve him from the requirement to comply with the CPR and the pleading rules contained therein, Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 followed.
Summary judgment was entered as the defendant’s bare denial of the claim did not reach even the “fanciful” level of prospect of success. The evidence was overwhelming that he controlled the website and was the author of a great deal, if not all, of its content. It contained information that could only have been known to him at the time it was published. It also contained language that matched language used in documents known to have been written by him. Further, the defendant’s conduct clearly amounted to harassment of the claimant. It went far beyond anything that could be considered reasonable or fair comment, even allowing for the fact that a judge had to expect robust criticism of their work, and warranted a final injunction permanently restraining him from harassing the judge.
£33 million judgment from Federal Court of Nigeria, unenforceable in UK
Agbara v The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited [2019] EWHC 3340 (QB)
This case discusses the setting aside of the registration of a judgment of the Federal Court of Nigeria for damages worth approximately £33m, before interest, under the Administration of Justice Act 1920, s9. This would mean that the judgment was not enforceable in the UK.
Held: appeal allowed and the registration of judgment will be set aside. The applicant suffered a serious breach of natural justice through being prevented from presenting its defence to the claim, and such a breach would ordinarily lead to the conclusion that it is not “just and convenient” for the judgment to be registered. It would not be just and convenient for the judgment to be enforced in the UK.
Discrimination in migration to Universal Credit
R (TP AR & SXC) v SSWP & Anor [2019] EWHC 1116 (QB)
The provisions in the draft Universal Credit (Managed Migration Pilot and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations are discriminatory under ECHR, art 14 insofar as they treat two groups of severely disabled people differently in terms of migration to Universal Credit. The differential treatment arose depending on whether persons in receipt of the Severe Disability Premium had already […]
Permission granted to judicially review Home Office policy concerning victims of trafficking
NN and LP v SSHD [2019] EWHC 1003 (Admin)
In an action brought by two victims of modern slavery, the High Court today continued interim relief barring the government from automatically ending support to any victim of trafficking, 45 days from receipt of a positive Conclusive Grounds decision. The judge accepted that the automatic cessation of support after 45 days carried a serious risk of irreparable harm to victims, many of whom have undergone experiences akin to the Claimants, LP (trafficked and repeatedly raped) and NN (trafficked, held in slave conditions and badly beaten).The High Court also granted permission to judicially review the three aspects of the Defendant’s policy concerning victims of modern slavery:(1) A challenge to the 45-day rule, by which the Home Office automatically ceases support to trafficking victims 45 days from a Conclusive Grounds decision. The Claimants contend that support should be provided pursuant to the Trafficking Convention and Directive, unless and until a victim leaves the jurisdiction;(2) A challenge to the Defendant’s policy regarding extensions of support to victims of trafficking beyond 45 days. The Claimants contend that the failure to publish criteria applicable to such decisions is unlawful and that the restrictive unpublished criteria unlawfully fail to give effect to the UK’s obligations under the Trafficking Convention; and(3) A challenge to the scheduling rule, by which the Home Office defers a decision on whether a victim of trafficking is entitled to discretionary leave to remain pending a decision on whether to grant them asylum (a process often associated with prolonged delay and the attendant anxiety of an insecure immigration status). The Claimants contend that the scheduling rule is incompatible with the Trafficking Convention, breaches ECHR, art 14 and contravenes Equality Act 2010, s19 by indirectly discriminating against non-EU nationals.The decision on interim relief has broader significance for the availability generic interim relief in public law proceedings i.e. benefitting a wider class of persons similarly situated to Claimants. The High Court rejected the Defendant’s arguments that (a) Senior Courts Act 1981, s31(2A) statutorily barred such relief and (b) that save in very restrictive circumstances, the grant of relief on behalf of persons unknown was unavailable in judicial review proceedings.