[2025] EWHC 2114 (KB)

The APoC, although containing amendments that have not yet been approved by the court, sets out the most recent and fullest formulation of the claim. The defendant therefore accepts that, in fairness to the claimant, the Meaning Determination and the Summary Judgment Application should be determined by reference to the APoC. I proceed on that basis.

Part 8 of the APoC contains a long list, in tabular form, of the alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant about the claimant in the Documentary (paragraph 8(A) of the APoC) and in the Drama (paragraph 8(B) of the APoC). In column 1 of the table, each statement is numbered, in column 2 the statement is set out together with a cross-reference to where that statement occurs in the script for the Documentary or the Drama, as the case may be, and in the third column, under the heading “meanings re[a]sonable viewer would understand”, the claimant has in general listed a few words, typically adjectives or other one- or two-word descriptions (such as “violent, coercive, controlling” or “conspiratorial, retribution, powerful”) rather than a statement setting out the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used.

I agree with the submission of the defendant that paragraph 9 of the APoC contains something closer to an articulation of the meanings that the claimant says are defamatory of him.

In relation to the statements in the Drama of which he complains, the claimant brings his claim in respect of the publication of those statements when the Drama was first broadcast on ITV1 on 28 and 29 September 2020. He also relies on the continuing availability of the Drama on ITV Hub/ITVX since that time and on the Drama becoming available on Netflix since 1 July 2024 and on Amazon Prime since 29 September 2024.

In relation to serious harm to reputation, the claimant asserts at part 15 of the APoC that:

“When the claimant was convicted for Banaz’s murder in 2007, there were no negative reaction against him and his family from [the] Kurdish community in [the] UK, in Kurdistan and in prison. … Honour killing is a sensitive and private matter, that [is] tolerated by the Kurdish community due to their cultural, traditional customs. Consequently, Banaz’s murder did not damage claimant’s reputation and his businesses among the Kurdish community in [the] UK and Kurdistan.”

The claimant also asserts at part 15 of the APoC that he, his family, and his businesses only began to suffer negative consequences from members of the Kurdish community and in prison from other prisoners after the broadcast of the Documentary and the Drama:

“It was only then [that] public rage started in [the] UK, in Kurdistan and in prison against the claimant, his family and his businesses. Threats to death, intimidation, and verbal insults [were] made against the claimant and his family, by the Kurdish community and in prison by prisoners”

The claimant asserts in his claim that the impact on him of the Documentary and the Drama has been significant. At Part 16B of the APoC, the claimant says:

“The claimant is a very well[-]known businessman, with [a] high reputation in [the] UK and in Kurdistan. The programmes closely touch the claimant’s personal integrity and his business reputation.”

Accordingly, in the APoC the claimant seeks “in … excess” of the original amount claimed of £400,000, in relation to:

“… damages to his reputation, serious harm on his health, life, freedom, daily life, mental, moral future, progression and constant fear to his life and confidence … .”