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

Pursuant to para 4 of the 7 March 2025 Order, the Claimant filed a document headed “Claimant’s case for Trial of Preliminary Issues” dated 3 April 2025. The document ranged more widely than the Preliminary Issues, however paras 16 – 24 addressed whether the YouTube video referred to the Claimant. Mr Ness sought to derive some support from the fact that Ms Miller had set out a defence of truth. He then included a screenshot from the live chat accompanying the video, contending that the verbal exchanged between the Defendant and Michelle Sojka (her co-presenter) which included the words complained of in the Particulars of Claim was initiated by a comment from someone called Charlotte in the chat who messaged, “Chris Substack saw you guys in the field last Saturday” followed by a laughing face emoji. The document continued that the Claimant had published a Substack blog on 31 January 2024 (which was included at his Appendix 2) and a related Substack audio post on 2 February 2024. He asserted that the audience member who made the comment was familiar with either or both of these Substack posts; and that the location of the field referred to was St Michaels-on-Wyre in Lancashire on Saturday 27 January 2024. He said that the video plainly referred to him. He also made reference to Google search engine returns for “Chris Substack”. The Claimant appended a transcript of parts of the YouTube video. I have appended a shorter transcript of the relevant parts of the video at Appendix 1 to this judgment.

Paras 28 – 44 of the same document addressed the question of whether the Defendant was a publisher of the England Athletics emails. In summary, the Claimant said that the evidence the Defendant published or caused to have published the redacted emails was provided by: (1) false statements she had made in her Defence Case Summary document; (2) defamatory social media posts she had made about the Claimant; (3) the contents of the YouTube video; and (4) the Fifth Email containing information regarding the Claimant’s bail conditions that were “known only to the Defendant (and team)”.