KB-2022-003316 - [2025] EWHC 2573 (KB)

Although Associated relied upon several reasons why the Ward Allegations should be struck out, I can deal with this shortly.

Even if proved true, they cannot assist in the fair resolution of the Claimants’ claims. It is not alleged that this incident has any connection with any Claimant, or any Pleaded Journalist. On that basis alone, and consistent with the parameters of the litigation and propensity evidence, the Ward allegations are therefore irrelevant and will be struck out.

Even had there been some nexus between the Ward allegations and any of the Claimants’ cases, I would nevertheless still have struck out the allegations. Fair resolution of the Ward allegations has now become extremely complex. The events took place over 30 years ago. This is not a small area of the case. It is now a substantial dispute of fact. The costs and resources that would be devoted to resolving the factual dispute would, I am satisfied, be out of all proportion to any possible evidential value. Put bluntly, it has become a complex and involved side-show. I would have excluded it on case management grounds had I not been satisfied that it should be struck out on the grounds of relevance.

Finally, it is simply too late and too much of a distraction to pull this issue into shape before the trial in January. The Claimants’ unorthodox approach to pleading – by running a materially different case in the Reply from what is alleged in the Particulars of Claim – I would not have allowed to stand. It would have been necessary to order the Claimants to go back to scratch and amend their Particulars of Claim to set out their case. That would then have necessitated potential amendments to the Defence.

The Claimants’ insistence on maintaining the Ward Allegations as part of their case reflects a continued and fundamental misunderstanding of the proper scope of this litigation – despite the clarification provided in the July Judgment. It also reveals an unreasonable approach to the costs implications of litigating in this way.

Attached to Associated Skeleton Argument for this hearing was a schedule identifying 8 further passages in the Replies which, if Associated’s submissions in relation to striking out passages in the Particulars of Claim were upheld, Associated contended also fell to be struck out by parity of reasoning. This schedule is reproduced in Part 2 of the Appendix to this judgment.

At the hearing, no particular attention was paid to the Replies.

Following the hearing, on 4 October 2025, Baker McKenzie sent a further copy of the schedule which had been overlooked in the combined schedule that had been submitted by the parties. In response, on 6 October 2025, Callum Galbraith sent an email to the Court:

“We note that the Defendant seeks to strike out material relating to the Replies on the basis that it is said that this “falls within any of categories 1-6 of ANL’s strike out application dated 10 September 2025”. No Application Notice was issued in this regard and the Court directed it would only entertain applications at the CMC that had been issued before its commencement nor have the Claimants responded to this. As such, the Claimants object to the Defendant’s attempt to get the same determined in these circumstances and respectfully submit that it would be unfair for the Court to do so.”

I disagree that there would be any unfairness. Although it is technically correct that Associated had not issued an Application Notice seeking specifically to strike out the identified parts of the Replies, the grounds on which objection is taken to these few sections are the same as those advanced in respect of the Particulars of Claim. In other words, there is no prejudice or unfairness occasioned to the Claimants by the Court resolving the consequential impact on the Replies of the Court’s determination of the Pleadings Applications. Indeed, one would have expected the Claimants to have wanted the Court to resolve all outstanding issues in relation to the pleadings so as to ensure that there is no risk to the trial date.

I am satisfied that the sections of the Replies identified in the schedule should be struck out for the same reasons that similar paragraphs have been struck out of the Particulars of Claim.