[2025] EWHC 2114 (KB)

As I have already noted, the claimant issued this claim on 30 October 2023 in the County Court Civil Business Centre. It appears that there was no pre-action correspondence. The defendant says that it first learned of the claim when it was served on it by the court on 2 November 2023. The original particulars of claim were drafted by the claimant.

On 30 November 2023, the defendant issued the Summary Judgment Application, which was served on the claimant at HMP Whitemoor.

On 28 February 2024, the claimant provided to the County Court his response to the Summary Judgment Application.

On 4 March 2024, the defendant received the claimant’s response to the Summary Judgment Application, comprised of 354 pages, much of it handwritten, dealing with a variety of topics, and not supported by a statement of truth. The defendant’s position is that much of that response is irrelevant to the Summary Judgment Application.

On 10 April 2024, the defendant was given notice that the claim had been transferred to the High Court and, in due course, a hearing of the Summary Judgment Application was listed on 7 October 2024.

On 29 July 2024, the King’s Bench Masters’ Listing Office at the High Court sent to the parties a letter setting out the comments of Master Dagnall, the assigned Master, which, without making any order, suggested that the claimant might wish to consider providing proposed replacement particulars of claim that complied with the requirements for statements of case in defamation actions, together with a witness statement of any evidence on which he wished to rely in response to the Summary Judgment Application at the hearing on 7 October 2024.

On 5 August 2024, the defendants’ solicitors, Osborne Clarke LLP (“Osborne Clarke”), wrote to the claimant to ensure that he had received a copy of the court’s letter of 29 July 2024, to draw his attention to its contents, and to observe that his lengthy response to the Summary Judgment Application was not a witness statement or verified with a statement of truth. In that letter Osborne Clarke also referred the claimant specifically to paragraphs 28-31 of the first witness statement, dated 30 November 2023, of Mr Henry Fox, an Associate Director at Osborne Clarke, where Mr Fox had noted that the claim was time-barred under section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 in respect of both the Documentary and the Drama and that if the claimant wanted the court to disapply the limitation period, then he would need to make an application to that effect, supported by evidence, under section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980.

On 9 September 2024, the claimant served his first amended particulars of claim and a witness statement, along with a witness statement dated 18 April 2024 from his daughter, Skala Mahmod, describing the impact of the Documentary and the Drama on her family.

On 7 October 2024, the parties appeared before Master Dagnall for the hearing of the Summary Judgment Application, with the claimant appearing via live-link from HMP Whitemoor and the defendant represented by Mr Ben Gallop. It emerged at the hearing that the claimant did not have the hearing bundle, the defendant’s skeleton argument, or the bundle of authorities prepared by the defendant, all of which the defendant said had been sent to the claimant at HMP Whitemoor. Master Dagnall therefore adjourned the Summary Judgment Application, consulted with one of the Judges in Charge of the Media and Communications List, and then made an order dated 7 and 10 November 2024 (“the Dagnall Order”), giving various directions, including:

Since the Dagnall Order, the claimant has served various documents on the defendant, including the Claimant’s Limitation Application and the Amendment Application. The claimant has also served a further draft of Amended Particulars of Claim dated 6 February 2025 (“the APoC”) and a new unsealed claim form dated 6 February 2025 seeking £300,000 for the Netflix and Amazon Prime Video publications of the Drama.

At paragraph 18-19 of its skeleton argument for the hearing before me, the Defendant has raised certain issues that will require addressing in relation to the foregoing documents, and some related matters, should any part of the claim remain following the determination of the Summary Judgment Application. The defendant’s position is that it is in the interests of justice to ensure that the issues of meaning and limitation are now dealt with, with those additional matters to be addressed, if necessary, following my determination of the Summary Judgment Application. I agree.