Richard (Raziel) Davidoff & Ors v Nicholas Hargrave
[2023] EWHC 1825 (KB)
Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v Syed Tauqeer Bukhari
1 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 427 (KB)
High Court
Two cousins are fighting in court. One accuses the other of bad things online. The judge says the accused's defense is messy but gives him a second chance to fix it before making a final decision.
Key Facts
- •The claimant and defendant are cousins. The claimant is a well-known businessman and former advisor to the Pakistani Prime Minister. The defendant lives in England.
- •The claim is for libel and harassment based on hundreds of tweets and videos published by the defendant alleging the claimant's corruption and criminal activities.
- •The defendant initially had legal representation but later represented himself.
- •Preliminary issues in the libel claim were determined, finding several statements defamatory.
- •The defendant's defence was deemed non-compliant with pleading requirements.
- •The claimant applied to strike out the defence and for summary judgment.
- •The defendant's defence includes pleas of truth and reliance on sections 1(3)(a) and 1(3)(c) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Legal Principles
Harassment requires a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct causing alarm, fear, or distress.
Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17
A statement is not defamatory unless its publication caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 1(1)
The court may strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim or if there has been a failure to comply with a rule or order.
CPR 3.4(2)
Summary judgment may be granted if the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
CPR 24.2
Outcomes
Claimant's application to strike out the defence and for summary judgment was rejected.
While the defendant's defence was defective, the court found there was reason to believe the defendant could remedy the defects with further amendment. The court considered the defendant's Article 10 rights (freedom of expression) and the complexities of the case, including multiple imputations and the inferential nature of the serious harm claim.
Defendant given further opportunity to amend his defence to address identified pleading deficiencies.
The court considered the defendant's efforts to improve his pleadings and the seriousness of the allegations involved. It applied the principle in *Kim v Park* to avoid striking out without offering a chance to correct defects.