Mohamed Amersi v Charlotte Leslie & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1368 (KB)
John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Sonia Vanessa Poulton
24 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 3001 (KB)
High Court
Imagine two people fighting in court. One wants to add new things to their complaint, but the judge says some are too late and others are too similar to what's already there. The judge also says one person is being unfair and makes some cost orders. A separate part of the fight is also put on hold because it's very similar to the main fight.
Key Facts
- •John Hemming (Claimant), a former MP, sued Sonia Poulton (Defendant), a journalist, for defamation and data protection breaches related to statements in a November 2019 interview (Publication 1).
- •The interview discussed Esther Baker's allegations of child sexual abuse by an MP, where Hemming was implicitly identified.
- •Poulton counterclaimed against Hemming and others for harassment.
- •Hemming subsequently brought further claims against Poulton related to additional publications (Publications 2-5).
- •Multiple applications for amendments, summary judgment, and injunctive relief were made by both parties.
Legal Principles
Principles governing amendments under CPR 17.1, 17.3, and 17.4.
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
Test for malice in defamation.
Gatley on Libel and Slander (13th Edn)
Serious harm requirement in defamation under Defamation Act 2013.
Defamation Act 2013
Test for abuse of process.
Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group Plc [2008] 1 WLR 748
Discretionary exclusion of time limit for defamation actions under Limitation Act 1980.
Limitation Act 1980
Principles relating to withdrawal of admissions under CPR 14.5
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
Outcomes
Granted Hemming permission to amend the Particulars of Claim regarding Publication 1 (malice) and Publication 5 (defamation).
Amendments were arguable, coherent, and supported by evidence. The Defendant would not suffer undue prejudice.
Refused Hemming permission to add defamation claims regarding Publications 2-4 under CPR 17.4.
The new claims did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim. The limitation period had expired and the s.32A application was dismissed.
Dismissed Hemming's application under Limitation Act 1980, s.32A to disapply the limitation period for Publications 2-4.
The prejudice to the Defendant outweighed the prejudice to the Claimant. The delay in bringing the claims was significant.
Granted Poulton permission to re-amend her Defence (partially) but refused permission to withdraw an admission regarding serious harm.
The proposed amendments to the Defence were deemed permissible, but the withdrawal of the admission would cause significant prejudice to the Claimant.
Refused to lift the stay on the KB claim (relating to PIP).
Concerns remained that the KB claim was an abuse of process due to its similarity to the QB claim and potential for harassment/oppression of the Defendant. However, striking it out was deemed too drastic at this stage.
Ordered consolidation of the KB claim with the QB claim if the stay is lifted at a later date.
Significant overlap of facts and issues between the claims necessitated consolidation to avoid inconsistent findings and promote efficiency.
Set directions for the Fifth and Sixth Applications (alleged breaches of settlement agreement).
Factual disputes required further statements of case and a CMC to determine future management.
Various cost orders were made, largely following the 'loser pays' principle and taking into account conduct of the parties.
Detailed analysis of costs based on success or failure of each application, as well as considerations of proportionality and party conduct.