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

I will permit the Claimant to rely upon the case on publication that he set out in his “Unredacted Emails” document (para 44 above). The position is distinct from his non-pleading of a case on reference (paras 84 – 90 above). Firstly, unlike the position with the YouTube video, the unredacted emails were not available to the Claimant when the Particulars of Claim were prepared and they have only recently become available. Secondly, the 20 June 2025 communication from the Court positively indicated to the Claimant that he could set out his case on the Defendant having procured Ms Gauntlett to publish the emails in an amended version of his “Claimant’s case for Trial of Preliminary Issues” document or in a fresh document (as opposed to a pleading) and no time limit was imposed (paras 43 – 44 above). Thirdly, the case that is advanced is relatively clear so that it can be responded to and assessed by the Court. Fourthly, I am satisfied that the Defendant had an adequate opportunity to respond to the Claimant’s case in this respect and that she will not be prejudiced by this decision. I turn to the merits of Mr Ness’ contention.

The Claimant’s case is largely based on a series of assertions. I have summarised his submissions at paras 70 – 73 above. He alleges that the Defendant played the lead tactical role in coordinating a smear campaign against him aided by her Truth Finders “teammates” involving a number of anonymous participants including Ms Gauntlett. Assertions are not a substitute for evidence. As I have indicated, the Claimant chose not to give evidence. However, I address below as part of my reasoning each of the central points that he made in questioning the Defendant and in his oral submissions.

I note that the Claimant’s case rests on inference; there is no direct evidence that the Defendant procured the publication of the England Athletics emails. There are, for example, no messages passing between the Defendant and Ms Gauntlett to that effect in the disclosure that Ms Miller gave (para 40 above). Ms Miller has denied any involvement; and in the emails exhibited to Ms Miller’s 26 June 2025 witness statement, Ms Gauntlett denied that Ms Miller was involved.

Whilst giving her evidence, the Defendant said that at the time when the emails were sent, she had never heard of England Athletics. The Claimant replied that he accepted this. This in itself is not fatal to the Claimant’s case. It would not be necessary for the Defendant to know the precise name of the athletics body in question, if she had indeed knowingly caused the emails to be sent.

I did not hear evidence from Ms Gauntlett and I am not in a position to make specific findings as to the sources of the material contained in the emails. However, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that Ms Miller did not ask or encourage Ms Gauntlett to send the England Athletics emails and that she had no advanced knowledge that Ms Gauntlett was going to send the emails. It therefore follows that she did not procure their publication. In these circumstances, the sheer fact that Ms Gauntlett may (and I stress may) have come to learn indirectly of some information that had originated from Ms Miller and, unbeknown to the Defendant at the time, relied upon it in her communications with the athletics bodies, does not in itself make Ms Miller liable as a publisher of the England Athletics emails. (She is not being sued as a publisher of information to Ms Gauntlett.)

I do not consider it appropriate or necessary on the limited evidence before me to make findings, one way or the other, as to whether Ms Gauntlett is or was the anonymous person who posts as “MVolunteer@76” (para 51(iv) above), although I observe that the supporting material identified by Mr Ness appeared to be limited. It is unnecessary for me to do so because the Claimant’s line of reasoning (summarised at para 72 above) is in any event unsustainable. The alleged link between the Defendant and the publication of the England Athletics emails is no more than speculative. The sheer fact that the Defendant and (potentially) Ms Gauntlett had both published online posts that are critical of the Claimant is unremarkable for present purposes and does not begin to prove that they conspired to send the England Athletics emails. The views that the Claimant has posted about the Nicola Bulley case (which there is no need for me to rehearse here) are unusual and controversial and that there have been expressions of disagreement and contrary views posted is not in itself evidence of a co-ordinated plan or campaign to defame him.

In terms of the Claimant’s specific chain of reasoning (para 72 above), there is no clear evidence that Ms Gauntlett is the author of the “Conspiracy Coconut Chris Ness” post. The sheer fact that this post of 20 December 2023 and the subsequent tweet from “MVolunteer@76” of 7 January 2024 both refer to Doritos does not prove that the authors are the same person. As the Claimant accepted when I put it to him, the reference in the later tweet to Doritos may be because the person who sent it had read the 20 December 2023 post (as opposed to written it). Furthermore, even if the authors were the same, the sheer fact that two people involved with Truth Finders tweeted / retweeted those posts, shows no more than that they agreed with them. It does not begin to prove that there was a mutually agreed plan to defame the Claimant via the England Athletics emails.

I listened carefully to the Defendant’s evidence and I accept the credibility of her account. I accept her denial of involvement in the England Athletics emails.

More specifically, I accept the answers that Ms Miller gave in relation to the First Email, which I have already set out at para 51(ii) above, namely that she did not know Ms Gauntlett at the time, that she had not communicated with her about her 10 February 2024 police complaint and she did not know Ms Gauntlett was intending to send the email. As I have explained at para 114 above, if the reference in the First Email to a police investigation was to the Defendant’s police complaint and this information had come to Ms Gauntlett indirectly (by “Chinese Whispers” as Ms Miller put it), that in itself would not make her liable for the publication of the First Email. I reach a similar conclusion in relation to the passage in the penultimate paragraph of the first 8 March 2024 email that the Claimant put to her, where again I accept Ms Miller’s answers (para 51(vi) above).

I also accept the Defendant’s account that she did not contact Ms Gauntlett in relation to the reference to the Claimant’s bail conditions that appears in the Fifth Email (para 51 (v) above). The Surrey Police document that the Claimant relied upon (para 73 above) does not establish that the Defendant was told of the Claimant’s bail conditions (as opposed to his “arrest” earlier in the day). The Defendant accepts that she was told of the arrest (para 51(v) above). Accordingly, this document does not undermine the credibility of the Defendant’s account in the way that the Claimant suggested. I have already explained that even if the information regarding the bail conditions did originate from the Defendant and found its way to Ms Gauntlett via a series of “Chinese Whispers” this in itself would not make Ms Miller a publisher of the England Athletics emails (para 114 above).

I do not accept that the Defendant’s oral evidence contradicted para 5 of her 26 June 2025 witness statement. The Claimant placed considerable store on the proposition that the Defendant’s oral evidence was inconsistent with her reference in the statement to “the emails that include details of my police complaints to police” (para 47 above). However, as I have explained, Ms Miller’s evidence allowed for the possibility that some information that originated from her had found its way to Ms Gauntlett via “Chinese Whispers”. Accordingly, she did not positively dispute that the references in the emails that Mr Ness highlighted were or could have been references to her police complaints. What she did dispute was that she knew Ms Gauntlett at the time, that she had communicated with her directly and that she was aware of the intended England Athletics emails. All of that is consistent with her witness statements and I accept her evidence in these respects.

I accept that the Defendant had proper reasons for objecting to the witness summons obtained by the Claimant. Master Davison agreed and set this aside (para 41 above). I also accept that, more recently, the Defendant did ask Ms Gauntlett to provide a witness statement, as she said. I do not consider that the sharing of the bundle with Ms Gauntlett was suspicious or improper in the circumstances. I accept the explanation given by the Defendant and by Mr Hughes (paras 51(i) and 82 above). For the avoidance of doubt, this entailed using the disclosed documents for the purposes of the proceedings.

I record that a suggestion made in one of the Claimant’s documents that the Defendant had bribed Ms Gauntlett to send the England Athletics emails was not even put to Ms Miller in cross examination, nor mentioned in Mr Ness’ oral submissions. There is no supporting evidence for this whatsoever and I reject this allegation.

For completeness, I also record that there is nothing in the YouTube video, in the sending of the cease and desist letter or in the contents of the Defence Case Summary that supports the Claimant’s case on publication.

Accordingly, I conclude that the Claimant has failed to show that the Defendant caused or procured the publication of the England Athletics emails.