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

The claim was issued on 22 January 2025. It appears that the Particulars of Claim were served with the Claim Form. By Application Notice dated 19 February 2025, the Defendant applied to strike out the claim or for a hearing on the meaning of the words relied upon. The ‘Defence Case Summary’ documented dated 28 February 2025 (and filed on 3 March 2025) contended that the Defendant did not send the England Athletics emails, did not procure anyone to write the England Athletics emails and “the Defendant has no idea who sent these emails to England Athletics”. The document also said that the YouTube video did not mention the Claimant’s name and that the presenters were responding to a question in the chat on the video.

The Claimant filed a Reply dated 13 March 2025, which addressed various aspects of the Defence Case Summary, but not specifically the two contentions I have referred to in the previous paragraph.

When ordering the Preliminary Issues Trial on 7 March 2025, Master Davison made various directions. These included at para 4 that by 4.30pm on 4 April 2025:

“…(A) the Claimant shall serve and file a document setting out his case on how and why he says that (i) the video refers to him and (ii) the Defendant is the author / publisher of the emails and (B) the Defendant shall file and serve a document setting out what she says in the meaning of the video. (The Defendant is not ordered to set out her case on the meaning of the emails (given her stance that she was not the author or publisher of those emails)).”

The Master also directed the parties to exchange witness statements “which are to be limited to the preliminary issues identified” in the Order, by 4.30pm on 9 May 2025. He indicated that if the Claimant wanted to pursue an application against England Athletics for disclosure of unredacted copies of the emails, so as to reveal the identity of the sender, any such application was to be issued and served by the dates that he stipulated.