Rai v Bholowasia & Anor
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- MRS. JUSTICE SIMLER
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Media Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a libel action where the claimant sought to strike out the defence due to non-compliance with court orders, relating to a defamatory article alleging theft. The court had issued various directions, but the defendants failed to comply, citing ill health. The court provided a final opportunity for compliance, requiring the defendants to submit witness statements and pay wasted costs, failing which the defence would be struck out.
J U D G M E N T
MRS. JUSTICE SIMLER :
This is an application made by the claimant in a libel action to strike out the defence on the basis of non-compliance with court orders and, in light of that non-compliance, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of the defence succeeding.
The underlying action relates to a publication in a Punjabi newspaper of an article suggesting that the claimant had stolen from a holy donation collection box at the Sikh Temple at which he is both a worshipper and a volunteer. He denies that allegation and regards it, unsurprisingly in those circumstances, as a serious and defamatory publication. The defendants accept the publication. They accept that the words relied on by the claimant were used, but raise a defence of justification and qualified privilege. In the defence a witness, Mr. Navpreet Singh, is named as having witnessed the alleged theft, and there is a suggestion that another person is also a witness but cannot be named for reasons of his personal safety.
The proceedings started some time ago, but in the early part of this year, as a result of the first defendant's ill health, the claimant agreed to a stay for a period of three months. On 2 nd July 2014 the defendants' solicitor, Ms. Parminder Mattoo of MTG Solicitors (who is the civil litigation partner with responsibility for the action) wrote to the claimant's solicitors, saying that they had taken their client's instructions following the end of the three-month stay that had been agreed, and confirming that he had advised them that he was fit enough to proceed with the litigation and fit enough to engage in and attend a trial in early 2014. In consequence, there was a hearing in front of Master Yoxall at which directions were given, including directions for the exchange of witness statements by 4.00 p.m. on 20 th October 2014, and a direction to attend a pre-trial review on 4 th December. Thereafter, on 31 st July, both sides' representatives attended a listing for trial appointment, and the trial was fixed for 19 th January 2015 for a period of three to five days. Confirmation of that listing fixture was given and that the pre-trial review would be heard on 4 th December with a time estimate of one hour. A letter to that effect was sent out to solicitors on 1 st August 2014.
On 20 th October, not having heard anything from the defendants or MTG Solicitors to suggest that there was any difficulty in relation to exchange on 20 th October, Mr. Sahota