KB-2025-000232 - [2025] EWHC 1784 (KB)

By my Order of 25 June 2025, I refused the Claimant’s application to vary the Master’s Order setting aside the witness summons issued in respect of Ms Sojka, on the basis that no cogent basis for doing so had been identified. The Claimant had earlier indicated that he wanted to question Ms Sojka about her intention in respect of words spoken in the YouTube video. However, this would not be admissible evidence (para 55 below).

By my Order of 30 June 2025, I granted the Defendant permission to rely upon her further witness statement (confusingly headed “First Witness Statement”) dated 26 June 2025. I explained my reasons for doing so in the Order. The Claimant did not oppose the application and indeed sought to rely on aspects of this witness statement to advance his case.

In her 26 June 2025 statement, Ms Miller denied that she was the author or sender of the England Athletics emails. She said she now knew that Lindsay Gauntlett had written to the Court to confirm that she was the author of these emails; and she exhibited Ms Gauntlett’s emails that were sent to the Court on 6, 19 and 25 June 2025, to confirm this. The Defendant’s statement continued as follows:

“5.

I did not know that Lindsay Gauntlett had sent any emails or even know who she was. We have never even met in person or spoke to each other prior to Lindsay sending these emails. I had no idea that Lindsay Gauntlett had sent any emails, including the emails that include details of my police complaint to the police.

6.

I did not procure or instruct Lindsay Gauntlett to publish the emails to Athletics England and I had no part in the drafting of these emails.”

By a further Order of 30 June 2025, I declined to address a without notice application from the Claimant dated 29 June 2025 (a Sunday) and seeking to add Ms Gauntlett as a defendant to the claim and to plead an additional defamation claim in relation to a recent email. I indicated that there was no good reason for the application to be made other than on notice.

During the course of June 2025, Ms Gauntlett sent a number of emails to the Court expressing unhappiness about the disclosure of the unredacted England Athletics emails to the parties, as she had believed at the time that she was communicating her concerns in confidence. Ms Gauntlett requested various Court orders, including that she be anonymised for the purposes of these proceedings. Her emails were referred to me as the Judge hearing the Preliminary Issues Trial. At the hearing, I gave the parties an opportunity to address me on the various requests made by Ms Gauntlett. Thereafter, I made an Order dated 2 July 2025 addressing those requests. For present purposes, it will suffice to note that I refused her request for anonymity (and the associated reporting restriction) for the reasons that I identified in detail in that Order. However, for the reasons that I also explained in the Order, I did make a reporting restriction in respect of Ms Gauntlett’s home address and telephone number and an order relating to accessing her communications with the Court on the Court file.