![KB-2022-003316 - [2025] EWHC 2930 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
KB-2022-003316 - [2025] EWHC 2930 (KB)
Fecha: 10-Nov-2025
B: Associated’s Application for an unless order to ensure compliance with the Research Team Order
B: Associated’s Application for an unless order to ensure compliance with the Research Team Order
Associated were not satisfied that the Claimants had complied with the Research Team Order. As a result, an Application Notice was issued, on 10 September 2025, seeking an unless order to force compliance with the Research Team Order. The Application was supported by the Fourteenth Witness Statement of Francesca Richmond.
To understand the Research Team Order and its importance to the issues in the litigation, Ms Richmond set out evidence which, she argued, demonstrated that the Research Team is likely to have documents that would fall within the ambit of standard disclosure and which should have been disclosed by the Claimants. Associated’s key focus is upon the limitation defence, and particularly the knowledge of each Claimant of facts that should have alerted them that they had a viable claim (“the Knowledge Issue”). From disclosure that had been given by the Claimants, Ms Richmond suggested that there were “serious questions” as to the evidence previously given by or on behalf of Sir Simon Hughes and Ms Frost Law, particularly relevant to the Knowledge Issue, both in their witness statements in connection with the Limitation Application (see judgment of 10 November 2023 [2024] 1 WLR 3669; [2023] EWHC 2789 (KB)), and in each of their Amended Replies. Ms Richmond contended that selective and incomplete disclosure by both Sir Simon and Ms Frost Law showed they were aware of their potential claims against Associated years earlier than they have previously claimed – in Sir Simon’s case at least nearly three years earlier than he had claimed, and in Ms Frost Law’s case as early as April 2016. Ms Richmond suggested that there was a “continuing failure or refusal” by the Claimants to search for documents held by members of the Research Team.
The position of Sir Simon Hughes and Sadie Frost Law
Sir Simon Hughes
So far as concerns the Knowledge Issue, Sir Simon’s case, pleaded in his Reply, is that he was “first made aware of potential unlawful information gathering targeted against him by Associated in around July 2020”.
In July 2020, Sir Simon states that he “was contacted by Graham Johnson of Byline Investigateswho told him that he had been targeted by hacking by the Mail on Sunday. He toldthe Claimant that Byline intended to publish an article about the matter”.
An article was subsequently published in Byline, on 20 July 2020, with the headline“‘SWARMED’: Former Justice Minister Simon Hugheswas phone hacked for the Mail on Sunday – After being blackmailed by The Sunwith illegally-obtained phone bills”. A further article making similar claims was published on 27 July 2020.
Sir Simon’s case is that he first realised that he had a worthwhile claim to bring against Associated after the following events in early 2022:
Sir Simon’s solicitor was provided with evidence from Graham Johnson, namely email exchanges between Greg Miskiw and Chris Anderson of the Mail on Sunday from on or around 19 April 2006 (“the Miskiw/Anderson Emails”) which suggested UIGby Associated and included a transcript of a voicemail.
At about the same time, Sir Simon was also told by Glenn Mulcaire that he had undertaken phone hacking for Associated and Graham Johnson provided a payment record from Greg Miskiw dated 7 June 2006 which indicated the payee was “MoS” and the subject was “Simon Hughes boyfriend / Sadie Frost Tips”. It is alleged that this payment record, for the first time, provided Sir Simon with the link between Associated and the activities of Mr Mulcaire.
In a witness statement, served earlier in the proceedings, responding to the Limitation Application, Sir Simon referred to the information that he received in early 2022 and stated (§§58-62a):
“This material, which I have only recently seen, explains for the first time the connection between me and the Mail on Sunday… and the activities of Glenn Mulcaire and explains the cryptic and previously opaque references in the Mulcaire notes… As soon as I was aware of this, I realised I might have the basis for bringing the claim that I do now… I did not believe and was not aware that I might have any claim, let alone a worthwhile claim, until I was provided with the material referred to above from Greg Miskiw, Glenn Mulcaire and Graham Johnson… I repeat that I was not aware and could not have been aware of the Miskiw/Anderson emails until 2022”.
Ms Frost Law
Ms Frost Law’s pleaded case as it relates to the Knowledge Issue is as follows:
In January 2019, she learned that private voicemails that she had left for her children’s then nanny, Jade Schmidt, in April 2006, were the subject of the Miskiw/Anderson Emails. She learnt about this because those emails had been published by Byline Investigates (“Byline”) in redacted form. On 1 January 2019, Byline had published an article written by Mr Johnson about Sadie Frost Law which referred to the Miskiw/Anderson Emails. The article was headlined “Mail on Sunday Phone Hacking – ‘smoking gun’emails quoted messages to top editor”. It referred to “explosive emails obtained by Byline Investigates” that were “aseries of messages between convicted Fleet Street phone hacker Greg Miskiw and former MoS ‘number three’ Chris Anderson”. The article included various pictures of parts of the Miskiw/Anderson Emails (with certain sections relating to Sir Simon Hughes redacted), suggesting that Mr Johnson had obtained (or had access to) copies of the emails at some point prior to 1 January 2019. It included quotes from Glenn Mulcaire explaining various of his notes and referring to him as a “notorious private eye-turned-whistleblower GlennMulcaire”.
On 4 January 2019, Byline Investigates published an article in which Ms Frost Law said that she would be taking legal advice in relation to The Mail on Sunday.
These events, in January 2019, constitute Ms Frost Law’s Personal Watershed Moment, that is the moment at which she discovered that she might have a worthwhile claim against Associated.
Associated’s “deliberate acts of concealment” prevented her from being on notice of a need to investigate her claims at any point earlier than her Personal Watershed Moment.
Following her Personal Watershed Moment in January 2019, Ms Frost Law subsequently instructed her lawyers to conduct further investigations and during these preliminary investigations, Ms Frost Law “for the first time saw the unredacted emails between Mr Anderson and Mr Miskiw”.
Evidence from disclosure
Associated contends that the case advanced both by Sir Simon and Ms Frost Law on the Knowledge Issue has been “fundamentally undermined” by documents disclosed by the Claimants in July and August 2025.
Sir Simon Hughes
Associated relies upon the following:
On 11 July 2019, at 12.56, Dr Evan Harris (a member of the Research Team) sent an email to Sir Simon (copied to Graham Johnson, another member of the Research Team):
“The Mail hacking claims are being developed, and will be ready to launch soon. To deter the Mail from arguing ‘limitation’ (ie you knew about this 6 years ago) Atkins Thomson think it best for stories to be written in Byline which can be referred as the basis for claims being raised.
Graham – copied in – has already done a number of Mail stories which can be found here https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/mail. The hacking ones are listed under “voiceMail” (gerrit?!). These include stories on Sadie Frost and Heather Mills
He has written a story on your Mail case (from public domain and legally sourced material) to follow in the series. It is his approach to check with the target of the Mail the text of the story in case you have ways you rather it was phrased. I have asked him to send you the draft after it has been legalled. Of course, it is not ideal to re-air these matters but the website is not one that the papers care to report from, so there is very little visibility. The virtue is that it puts the material into the public domain which will help the litigation.
At 14.04 on 11 July 2019, Mr Johnson responded to Sir Simon and Dr Harris:
“I attach THREE draft stories: Part 1, Part, 2, Part 3 of an investigative series, about how you were hacked by the MoS - and The Sun and the NoTW - at the same time.
Please note, that in January this year, we ran similar series about Heather Mills and her associates, Sadie Frost and MoS columnist/ hacking mastermind Tina Weaver, who was summarily sacked by Lord Rothermere, personally.
I would like to publish the stories about you on bylineinvestigations.com and byline.com over two or three weeks.
Is that OK?
You may change the copy, add or delete as you see fit, in track changes, if you will.
In addition, you may consider supplying a comment for each story.
Please let me know what you think.”
The three draft articles attached to Mr Johnson’s email contained the following (amongst other information):
An allegation that “The Mail on Sunday targeted [Sir Simon] using phone hacking”.
“Associate Editor Chris Anderson was in email contact with Greg Miskiw, a freelance journalist who specialised in selling hacked stories”. Associated suggests that this is a reference to the Miskiw/Anderson Emails.
“Miskiw paid private investigator Glenn Mulcaire to listen to Hughes’ voicemails, and those of his then boyfriend, and reported the findings back to the Mail on Sunday”, including quotations from Greg Miskiw admitting to having engaged Glenn Mulcaire for such purposes and quotations from Glenn Mulcaire confirming the same.
“Notes that were seized by the police Mulcaire [sic] in Operation Carytyd in August 2006 back-up his claims. One note has a name in the top left-hand corner – where Mulcaire wrote down the name of the tasker – which resembles the letters ‘Mos’.” There were quotations from Mr Mulcaire explaining his notes.
“Byline reporters have seen six emails between [sic] which mention Simon Hughes and ex-his [sic] boyfriend at the time they were being hacked. The messages were between Mail on Sunday Associate Editor Chris Anderson and Greg Miskiw…They are dated between Tuesday 25th April 2006, and Tuesday May 2nd 2006”. The third draft article described the Miskiw/Anderson Emails in detail.
“Hughes later made a witness [sic] stating: ‘I believe that The Mail on Sunday was also trying to write a story about (the boyfriend) and me. I remember that both of us had reporters turn up on our doorstep on the same day trying to find out information’.” Associated contends that it is clear, following Sir Simon’s disclosure on 25 July 2025 (pursuant to paragraph 19(c) of the Order) that this was a quotation from paragraph 5 of the Confidential Annex to the Witness Statement of Sir Simon dated 14 December 2011 in proceedings between Sir Simon and News of the World and Glenn Mulcaire. Based on the confidentiality of the annex (and the apparent lack of reaction from Sir Simon to it being quoted in the draft article), Associated suggests that the witness statement (including the confidential annex) had been provided directly or indirectly to Mr Johnson by Sir Simon, possibly at or around the time of the meeting between Sir Simon, Dr Evan Harris and Graham Johnson in April 2016 to discuss “the Mail business”.
“On Tuesday May 2nd 2006, Miskiw asked for £500 payment from the Mail on Sunday, half of which was for his work on the Simon Hughes story.”
On 20 July 2020, Dr Evan Harris emailed Sir Simon, attaching four draft articles and stated, “Please find attached the 4 part story that Byline was ready to run in January 2020 but held off because you were starting or applying for a new job.”Dr Harris asked Sir Simon for any thoughts he had on the drafts and whether he would like to offer a comment. The four draft articles, sent by Dr Harris to Sir Simon on 20 July 2020, were substantially the same in content as the three draft articles sent by Mr Johnson to Sir Simon on 11 July 2019, but which had not been published at that time. Between 20-28 July 2020, Byline subsequently published four articles substantially the same in content as the four draft articles sent to Sir Simon by Dr Harris.
Based upon these disclosed documents Associated contends that:
nearly three years before what Sir Simon Hughes claims was his personal watershed moment, his “hacking claim” against Associated was being prepared and would be “ready to launch soon”;
what Mr White KC described as “limitation camouflage” was being considered in 2019, by means of a Byline article; the camouflage only being required because it was recognised that Sir Simon had known for some time the core facts about Associated’s UIG; and
the documents cannot be reconciled with Sir Simon’s position that he was “first made aware of potential unlawful information gathering targeted against him by Associated in around July 2020” when he “was contacted by Graham Johnson of Byline Investigates who told him that he had been targeted by hacking by the Mail on Sunday”.
Associated also contends that there is evidence that Sir Simon was informed (or could with reasonable diligence have learned) about the Miskiw/Anderson Emails, the content of the Mulcaire Notes and the explanations of them given by Mr Mulcaire and Mr Miskiw, by at least early 2016.
Dr Harris emailed Sir Simon, on 3 March 2016, seeking to set up a meeting to discuss “the Mail business”. That meeting was scheduled to take place on 5 April 2016.
Sir Simon knew, or anticipated, that “the Mail business” that he would discuss with Dr Harris would relate to potential claims that he may have against Associated, and specifically in relation to the incident in 2006 regarding HJK (referred to in Sir Simon’s Particulars of Claim):
Sir Simon prepared for the meeting by emailing HJK on 4 April 2016, asking him if he could recall “the name of the journalist who tried to link you and me for the papers all those years ago”.
HJK responded on the same day “Is that our friend Evan Harris asking you? He asked me already.” He further stated that “I know he had a source that the DM or MOS was implicated”.
Sir Simon responded on the same day confirming that he was speaking to Evan Harris in relation to that incident: “Yes – exactly so. I am meeting Evan tomorrow”.
HJK responded the same day and speculated that the “source” that Evan Harris had may be Glenn Mulcaire: “I am sort of concerned that his witness is Mulcair [sic]: Mulcaire had access to my litigation file part of the the [sic] litigation (he was a defendant).” HJK wondered “if Evan has a better case now” and added that “I would love it if we can prove the DM has lied in court (Leveson and all). That would be fun. And I would love to sue them. You know my statement at Leveson implicated them”.
Sir Simon exchanged messages with Dr Harris on 4 April 2016, in advance of the scheduled meeting on 5 April 2016:
Dr Harris stated, “I am bringing my investigative journalist Graham [Johnson] who got the whistleblower stuff”.
Sir Simon anticipated – as speculated by HJK – that Dr Harris had obtained information from Glenn Mulcaire as he responded “Not Mr Mulcaire?”.
Dr Harris responded and confirmed that Glenn Mulcaire was “one of” the people who had provided information to Graham Johnson: “Glenn is one of his sources – he’ll explain”.
Mr Johnson appears to have obtained a copy of the Miskiw/Anderson Emails in or around mid-2015 and Mr Miskiw and Mr Mulcaire were assisting the claimants in the proceedings against NGN, by providing both documentary and witness evidence, since at least 2015. In her evidence, Ms Richmond had identified the following facts:
Mr Miskiw began working with Mr Johnson in around mid-2015, when he provided various documentary evidence to Mr Johnson that enabled the claimants pursuing claims against NGN to elaborate their claims against the Sun.
The documentary evidence provided by Mr Miskiw in relation to The Sun formed the basis of articles written by Mr Johnson published by Byline from 2015, which in turn led to Mr Miskiw working “directly” for the claimants in the NGN litigation.
Mr Miskiw (as well as Glenn Mulcaire) was working directly with claimants in the NGN litigation no later than January 2016. In the case of Mr Mulcaire, it appears from the book he has published with Mr Johnson that he was paid to assist and provide evidence on hacking claims from 2011.
On 28 April 2016, in the NGN litigation, Mann J handed down judgment ([2016] EWHC 961 (Ch)) in relation to the claimants’ application to amend their general Particulars of Claim to elaborate their claim against the Sun newspaper (to extend their pleading that Mr Mulcaire arranged with the News of the World to carry out information gathering activities for them to include the Sun). Both Mr Miskiw and Mr Mulcaire provided witness statements as well as documentary evidence in support of the claimants’ application (see [29] and [41(ii)]). At the time of the amendment application, the claimants were represented by Hamlins LLP, who acted for the Sixth and Seventh Claimants in these proceedings until 3 April 2025.
In an article published in Press Gazette on 5 March 2025, Mr Johnson stated that the evidence that Mr Miskiw provided to him in mid-2015 – that formed the basis of the claimants’ amendment application against NGN – is the “same evidence” that he published in his Byline articles and upon which, in turn, “the Mail litigation is almost entirely based on”.
In the summer of 2016, Mr Johnson approached Chris Anderson. Mr Anderson reported that Mr Johnson had said that he was “authorised to guarantee” that if Mr Anderson cooperated with Mr Johnson’s “wider enquiries into the Mail group” then the Miskiw/Anderson Emails would be “kept private”.
An email dated 25 April 2016, disclosed by Ms Frost Law, appears to show that in the week commencing 11 April 2016 (i.e. around a week after the meeting between Sir Simon, Dr Harris and Mr Johnson on 5 April 2016), Dr Harris met with Ms Frost Law and her then solicitor, Mark Thomson, to discuss potential claims that she might have against Associated by reference to the Miskiw/Anderson Emails. In the email, Dr Harris circulated a list of actions arising from a meeting between (it appears) Dr Harris, Ms Frost Law and Mr Thomson that took place “the week before last”. Associated contends that the list of actions strongly suggests that the focus of the action points was informed by the Miskiw/Anderson Emails. If that is correct, then Associated suggests that, by April 2016:
Dr Harris and Mr Thomson (whether via Mr Johnson/Dr Harris and/or through his representation of claimants in their claims against NGN and Mr Mulcaire) had obtained or seen a copy of the Miskiw/Anderson Emails;
before, during or after that meeting, it is likely that Ms Frost Law was given, shown or else told about the Miskiw/Anderson Emails;
if Dr Harris was meeting with Ms Frost Law in April 2016 to discuss potential claims against Associated in relation to the incident and in reliance upon the Miskiw/Anderson Emails, then it is likely that he would also have given, shown or explained the Miskiw/Anderson Emails to Sir Simon at their meeting about “the Mail business” the previous week; and
given that Mr Mulcaire was acting as a “whistleblower” and a “source” for Mr Johnson prior to the meeting with Sir Simon on or around 5 April 2016, he is likely to have provided copies of the Mulcaire Notes, his explanations of the same and any payment records in relation to the 2006 incident to Mr Johnson, and it is likely that Graham Johnson had given, shown or explained the same to Sir Simon at the meeting on 5 April 2016.
Ms Frost Law
Following the Order made at the Second CMH, on 30 July 2025, Ms Frost Law disclosed further documents. Associated relies upon the following:
Relying upon the same evidence as advanced in respect of Sir Simon Hughes’ case (see [25(4)]-[25(5)] above), Ms Richmond suggests that it is likely that the documentation that Mr Miskiw provided to Mr Johnson in mid-2015 included the Miskiw/Anderson Emails, or that Mr Johnson relied on information from Mr Miskiw to obtain the emails from some other source by early 2016 at the latest. Mr Johnson later referenced and included the emails in redacted form in his article “Mail on Sunday Phone Hacking – ‘smoking gun’ emails quoted messages to top editor” published by Byline on 1 January 2019. It is this article that Ms Frost Law says triggered her Personal Watershed Moment.
In April 2016, Ms Frost Law attended a meeting at which Ms Richmond suggests, based on the disclosed documents, the Miskiw/Anderson Emails were shown to her and/or she was given copies and/or they were discussed. Ms Richmond relies, particularly upon the 25 April 2016 email from Dr Harris (see [25(5)] above).
On 22 August 2017, Dr Harris emailed Ms Frost Law:
“… I will discuss with Mark [Thomson] meeting about the Daily Mail (Mail on Sunday in fact) hacking issue as we have gathered more evidence since we last spoke, and will need you to speak to Kate who was also targetted.”
Ms Richmond has highlighted the reference to “more evidence”, which, she contends, suggests that previous evidence had been presented/discussed.
A further email, dated 31 December 2018, sent by Dr Harris to Ms Frost Law at 10.37:
“You may recall that I mentioned to you at Atkins Thomson’s office a couple of years ago that we were investigating suggestions that the Mail on Sunday were involved in hacking voice mail messages you had left or which were left you. We discussed that there was a potential claim there, that kate Moss was also targeted and that a lot more digging will be needed.
Well, that research has been done and this note below from the investigative journalist sets out what has been done so far.
As you are aware, Byline Investigates has started to publish a series of stories exposing the Mail on Sunday for phone hacking.
Here are the links to the first three stories:- [links provided]
These stories also appear on Byline.com.
The fourth story, about the hacking of Sadie Frost and her associates, is slated for publication shortly.
This story is particularly important because it reveals compromising emails between a hacker and an MoS exec, evidencing criminal knowledge at the MoS, which - for six years - it has denied.
Please note that Byline have taken steps to protect Ms Frost’s privacy and that of her associates.
It may be prudent to inform Sadie Frost of this development. Are you able to make contact with her please?
The story in its current form (not yet published is below).
The journalists have been very responsible with the redactions so as to ensure there is no further intrusion.
They have also let Mark Thomson know.
These investigator (sic) work closely with us, and with Atkins Thomson in fact, and they would be happy to show the material that they have got, so you can decide what to do next. There are five or so others who have been notified and I think they are suing Paul Dacre’s outfit.
Please feel free to discuss this with me.
Byline would be grateful for a short reaction from you, perhaps saying how concerned you are that anyone should be n [sic] to private emails and that there should be a full investigation if there is evidence that the Mail were involved”.
The “five or so others who [had] been notified” have not been identified, but Associated invites the inference that one of them is likely to have been Sir Simon Hughes in light of the other evidence that has emerged from disclosure.
Ms Frost Law responded at 12.32: “Yes I can respond – shall we do a quick call? Should I also speak to Mark [Thomson]”.
Dr Harris replied at 13.06, providing his telephone number and added:
“I know Mark is aware of this and, though he is on holiday at the moment, I know he would be happy to speak a soon is [he] is back.
A possible quote, which is does not commit to any action, might be
‘I am shocked/appalled and upset/distressed to hear that the Mail on Sunday were discussing my private voicemails with phone hackers with a view to writing a story about my and my family’s personal business. There was no public interest justification for any of this snooping and hacking. I will be taking legal advice on this and expect the Mail to start giving some answers.
But its entirely up to you”.
Ms Frost did not respond, so Dr Harris sent a further email, “I will send you the full emails (ie not the redacted ones in the article) if you like. Do you have a quote/comment?” Ms Frost Law responded suggesting that the proposed quote from her needed to be shorter. Dr Harris replied (at 20.47):
“Right, how about this?
‘I am appalled to hear that the Mail on Sunday was discussing my private voicemails with phone hackers with a view to writing a story about my and my family’s personal business. There was no public interest justification for any of this snooping and hacking, and I will be taking legal advice’
The story is below – at the foot of this email. The quote will be inserted in the middle somewhere.
I will send you the emails that the researchers got hold of.”
No further emails from Dr Harris have been disclosed by Ms Frost Law. Ms Richmond suggests that Ms Frost Law did not take up the offer of being sent/shown the emails because she already knew what they contained, having seen them (it is argued) in April 2016.
Associated contends that Mr Thomson and/or Dr Harris and/or other “researchers” working “closely” with Atkins Thomson and Dr Harris had evidently been carrying out such investigations on Ms Frost Law’s behalf for several years prior to the January 2019 Byline articles.