Richard D Hall v Martin Hibbert & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1665 (KB)
Martin Hibbert & Anor v Richard D Hall
8 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 227 (KB)
High Court
A journalist claimed the Manchester bombing was fake. A court quickly dismissed his claims as ridiculous and ruled in favor of the victims who had sued him for spreading false information and causing them distress.
Key Facts
- •Martin and Eve Hibbert were severely injured in the Manchester Arena bombing on 22 May 2017.
- •Richard Hall, a journalist, published a book and other materials claiming the bombing was a staged event.
- •Hall's publications accused the Hibberts of lies and deception and misused their personal information.
- •The Hibberts sued Hall for harassment, misuse of private information, and data protection breaches.
- •Hall denied the bombing occurred as described and challenged the Hibberts' injuries and presence at the Arena.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment may be granted if the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the issue and there is no other compelling reason for a trial.
CPR 24.2(a)(ii) and (b)
Principles governing summary judgment applications, including the need for a 'realistic' defense and avoidance of mini-trials.
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) and AC Ward & Sons Ltd v Catlin (Five) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1098
Issues suitable for summary determination are severable parts of the proceedings or components of a single claim; not merely factual issues among many.
Anan Kasei Co v Neo Chemicals [2021] EWHC 1035 (Ch) and Vardy v Rooney [2021] EWHC 1888 (QB)
Once credible evidence is presented, the defendant bears an evidential burden to show a real prospect of success.
Korea National Insurance Corp v Allianz Global Corporate & Speciality AG [2007] EWCA Civ 1066
The court can evaluate evidence in summary judgment applications but must avoid mini-trials.
King v Stiefel [2021] EWHC 1045 (Comm)
In civil proceedings, a criminal conviction is strong evidence of the commission of the offense, placing the burden on the defendant to disprove it.
Civil Evidence Act 1968, section 11 and CXX v DXX [2012] EWHC 1535 (QB)
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted for the claimants on the key issues (whether the bombing occurred as described, claimants' presence, injuries, and causation).
The court found Hall's claims that the bombing was a staged event to be absurd and fantastical, lacking any real prospect of success. The claimants' evidence, including the criminal conviction of Hashem Abedi and medical reports, was deemed credible and sufficient to meet their burden of proof.
Hall's applications for third-party disclosure dismissed.
The court deemed that further evidence would not affect the outcome of the key issues, making additional disclosure unnecessary.