[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)

In the Libel Claim:

Whether the statements complained of (or any of them) are substantially true in the agreed meaning, pursuant to section 2 of the Defamation Act, 2013.

Whether the statements complained of (or any of them) were or formed part of the statements on a matter of public interest, which the defendant reasonably believed that it was in the public interest pursuant to section 4(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 to publish, and continue to publish.

And if liability is established:

What award of general damages, if any, should be awarded to the claimant.

Causation.

What other remedies, if any, should be awarded to the claimant by way of non-pecuniary relief.

I have deliberately not provided a specific wording in relation to the causation issue, because this strikes me as something that the parties may wish to think about and address me on in terms of how that is formulated in the order.

In the PI Claims:

I will list the issues, but give the parties an opportunity to consider and address me on how the following should be worded if there are disputes that need to be resolved:-

Whether the defendant sexually assaulted JFM, as alleged.

Whether the defendant sexually assaulted MAM, as alleged.

Whether the court should exercise its discretion pursuant to section 33 of the Limitation Act, 1980 to permit MAM's action to proceed.

Whether the first defendant sexually assaulted Ms Maher, as alleged.

Whether the first defendant falsely imprisoned Ms Maher, as alleged.

Whether the first defendant intentionally inflicted injury upon Ms Maher, as alleged.

Whether the second defendant is vicariously liable for such conduct of the first defendant, as is proved in Ms Maher's case.

Whether the second defendant was negligent, and/or in breach of statutory duty and/or in breach of contract in relation to Ms Maher, as alleged.

Whether the court should exercise its discretion pursuant to section 33 of the Limitation Act, 1980 to permit Ms Maher's action to proceed.

Whether the defendant sexually assaulted MJJ, as alleged.

Whether the defendant intentionally inflicted injury upon MJJ, as alleged.

Whether the court should exercise its discretion pursuant to section 33 of the Limitation Act, 1980 to permit MJJ's action to proceed.

Whether the defendant sexually assaulted JAS, as alleged.

Whether the defendant intentionally inflicted injury upon JAS, as alleged.

Whether the defendant undertook a course of conduct constituting harassment in respect of JAS, contrary to section 1(1) of the Protection of Harassment Act, 1997, as alleged.

Whether the court should exercise its discretion pursuant to section 33 of the Limitation Act, 1980, to permit JAS' action to proceed.

What award of special damages, if any, should be awarded to the claimant; and

Any issues concerning interest on the above.