King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

[2025] EWHC 2114 (KB)

Fecha: 08-Ago-2025

The Summary Judgment Application

The Summary Judgment Application

49.

Turning, then, to the Summary Judgment Application, CPR r 24.3 sets out the test for summary judgment. It provides that the court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on an issue arising in the claim if it considers that the relevant party has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim, the defence, or the issue, as the case may be, and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should proceed to trial.

50.

I have regard to the well-established legal principles that apply to the determination of an application for summary judgment, as helpfully summarised by Nicklin J in Amersi v Leslie [2023] EWHC 1368 (KB) at [142].

51.

Given the meaning that I have determined for both the Documentary and the Drama, the Summary Judgment Application may be dealt with relatively briefly. The Summary Judgment Application is made on the following three grounds (which are set out at paragraph 9 of the first witness statement of Mr Fox):

Ground 1: the allegation that the defendant has defamed the claimant by accusing him of raping or being involved in the rape of Banaz Mahmod is not made out in the claimant’s Particulars of Claim or, in other words, there is no basis to say that the claimant has been defamed in the manner alleged;

ii)

Ground 2: the claim is well outside the limitation period for defamation, which is only one year, possibly by over ten years; and

iii)

Ground 3: the allegations in the claim form and the Particulars of Claim do not set out a legally recognisable claim against the defendant, the claim form and the Particulars of Claim fail to comply in numerous respects with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the Particulars of Claim fail to comply in other respects with proper pleading practice as established by relevant case-law, such that the claim form and the Particulars of Claim amount to an abuse of the court’s process.

52.

The issues raised by Ground 3 have to a significant extent, although by no means entirely, been addressed by amendments to the claimant’s Particulars of Claim that were directed by Master Dagnall, as I have summarised in the procedural history above.

53.

It is clear, for the reasons that I have already given, that the claimant does not say he was defamed by any statements in the Documentary or the Drama that he was involved in the murder of Banaz Mahmod. He accepts this as “a true story”. He accepts that it is a matter of fact that he was convicted of, and is serving a life sentence for, her murder. I have found that neither the Documentary nor the Drama bears the meaning that he says is defamatory of him, namely, that he ordered and/or was otherwise involved in the alleged rape of Banaz Mahmod. Accordingly, his claim has no basis. It has no realistic prospect of success. The claimant has not advanced any compelling reason why the claim should nonetheless be heard. The Summary Judgment Application therefore succeeds on Ground 1.

54.

I will strike out the claim form and the Particulars of Claim under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) and grant summary judgment on the claim under CPR r 24.3 in favour of the defendant.

55.

Strictly speaking it is not necessary, therefore, to consider Ground 2 or the Claimant’s Limitation Application, however as those questions were fully argued, I will set out my conclusions on them as briefly as I can.