Stephanie Hayden v Family Education Trust
[2023] EWHC 950 (KB)
Miqaad Versi v Mohamed Husain (aka Ed Husain)
28 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1672 (KB)
High Court
Someone sued someone else for a defamatory tweet. The defendant wanted a separate mini-trial to decide if the tweet caused 'serious harm'. The judge said no, because usually that's decided at the main trial, and this request would just add extra time and money. The person who won the argument gets their legal costs paid.
Key Facts
- •Defamation claim arising from a tweet published by the defendant on 21 November 2020.
- •Claimant is a former director of media monitoring at the Muslim Council of Britain.
- •Defendant is an author, academic, and government advisor.
- •Prior TPI determined meaning and defamatory status of the tweet.
- •Defendant applied for a TPI on the issue of 'serious harm' as required by the Defamation Act 2013.
- •The court considered whether it had the discretion to order a TPI on serious harm after a TPI on meaning.
Legal Principles
Court's discretion to order a separate trial of any issue (CPR r.3.1(2)).
CPR r.3.1(2)
Principles for deciding whether a preliminary issue is appropriate (Steele v Steele, Wentworth Sons Sub-Debt SARL v Lomas).
Steele v Steele [2001] CP Rep 106, Wentworth Sons Sub-Debt SARL v Lomas [2017] EWHC 3158 (Ch)
Guidance on TPIs in defamation proceedings (King's Bench Guide 2024, White Book 2024).
King's Bench Guide 2024, White Book 2024
Serious harm under Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013; seriousness determined by actual impact, not just word meaning (Lachaux v Independent Print).
Defamation Act 2013, s.1(1); Lachaux v Independent Print [2019] UKSC 27
Post-Lachaux approach to TPIs on serious harm: usually left to trial unless disposed of by summary judgment (Amersi v Leslie).
Amersi v Leslie [2023] EWCA Civ 1468
TPIs on serious harm are exceptional and require clear justification (Bindel v Pink News).
Bindel v Pink News [2021] EWHC 1868 (QB)
Outcomes
Defendant's application for a TPI on serious harm was refused.
The court found insufficient justification for departing from the usual practice of leaving serious harm to trial. The application was deemed procedurally inappropriate and potentially cost-ineffective, creating an overlap with evidence needed at trial. The court found the defendant's arguments insufficient to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances needed for such a TPI.
Claimant awarded costs to be assessed summarily.
The claimant was the successful party, and the application did not result in cost savings. The application was considered procedurally flawed.