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

Mr Hughes had addressed the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in the England Athletics emails in his Skeleton Argument. However, he agreed with my suggestion that it would not be appropriate for the Court to proceed to determine the meaning of these passages in the emails if the effect of my conclusions was that the Defendant was not the publisher of the emails and the publisher of them was not before the Court.

Mr Hughes submitted that the Claimant should not be permitted to rely on a case that was not pleaded in the Particulars of Claim. The pleaded case was that the Defendant had “sent” the emails, not simply that she had procured them, whereas the case that the Claimant had sought to advance at trial was a fundamentally different one. Although acknowledging that it was “a point that can fairly be made against me”, Mr Hughes argued that the 20 June 2025 email from the Court did not absolve the Claimant from the need to plead his case properly in this regard.

Turning to the merits of the question of whether the Defendant was involved with Ms Gauntlett in the publication of the emails, Mr Hughes submitted that the Defendant’s evidence had been consistent and honest and she had given credible responses to the points that the Claimant had put to her in cross examination. There was no sound evidential basis before the Court upon which I could conclude that the Defendant had played any part in the publication of the emails.

Mr Hughes suggested that there was nothing improper or suspicious about Ms Miller sharing the trial bundle with Ms Gauntlett; she was acting in person at that stage and was in the equivalent position to a solicitor exploring the possibility of calling a particular person as a witness for their client.