Salman Iqbal v GEO TV Limited
[2023] EWHC 3024 (KB)
Syed Ahmed Tariq Mir v Altaf Hussain & Ors
17 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 56 (KB)
High Court
Someone sued the leader of a political party for libel. The judge said there was enough evidence to suggest the leader was involved, either directly or through his team, so the case will go to trial. The person suing was also allowed to change his case slightly to strengthen it.
Key Facts
- •Syed Ahmed Tariq Mir (Claimant) sued Altaf Hussain (First Defendant) and others for libel over publications alleging dishonesty.
- •Publications included press releases on MQM's website and videos from a demonstration.
- •Mir was a senior MQM member until 2014, aligning with MQM-P afterward.
- •Hussain applied for summary judgment, Mir for permission to amend the Particulars of Claim.
- •The central issue was Hussain's responsibility for the publications, either through authorization or agency.
- •Mir's amended claim alleged agency, stating Hussain delegated website control to Mustafa Ali.
Legal Principles
Tests for strike-out and summary judgment under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and CPR 24.2(a).
CPR 3.4(2)(a), CPR 24.2(a), Lawrence v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2023] EWHC 2789 (KB), at [77], King v Stiefel [2021] EWHC 1045 (Comm)
Test for amendment under CPR 17.3.
CPR 17.3, Amersi v Leslie [2023] EWHC 1368 (KB) at [140]
Common law liability for libel publication; Defamation Act 2013, s. 10.
Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd [1997] QB 650, Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC 3525 (QB), Turley v Unite The Union [2019] EWHC 3547 (QB), Defamation Act 2013, s. 10
Liability for publications of an agent.
Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC 3525 (QB)
Principles governing inferences in summary judgment applications regarding publication.
Bataille v Newland [2002] EWHC 1692 (QB)
Outcomes
Hussain's application for summary judgment and strike-out failed.
The court found Mir had a realistic prospect of success on both his primary case (Hussain's participation) and alternative case (agency). Circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies, website content, and evidence from related proceedings (Haque v Hussain), created sufficient grounds for trial.
Mir's application to amend the Particulars of Claim succeeded (subject to minor clarifications).
The amendments, addressing agency and clarifying certain points, were deemed consistent with the primary case and supported by sufficient evidence.