Dhir v Saddler
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable,Mr Justice Nicklin |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 3155 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: C02LS677 |
| Date | 06 December 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 3155 (QB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin
Case No: C02LS677
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
(LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY)
Leeds Combined Court Centre
1 Oxford Road, Leeds LS1 3BG
David Mitchell (instructed by Michael Lewin Solicitors) for the Claimant
John Samson (instructed on a direct access basis) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 7–9, 13–14 November 2017
This is the judgment following the trial of a slander claim. Slander claims are rare. Those that make it to a full trial rarer still. This uncommonness is largely due to the difficulties that many claimants have in proving that particular words were spoken about them on a particular occasion. In this claim, although much else is disputed, the words spoken by the Defendant have been agreed from the outset.
The parties
The Claimant, Raj Dhir, is 75. He is a business man and owner of Harewood International Products LLP, which is a family business based in Leeds. He is married and has three children: two daughters, Reena and Ruchi, and a son, Rishi.
The Defendant, Bronte Saddler (known as "Annie") describes herself in her witness statement as an old-age pensioner and is also in her 70s. She is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Leeds and has five children – three sons and two daughters — and nine grandchildren.
One of her sons, Andrew, has, since 2001, had an on-off relationship with Reena Dhir. That relationship has led to the Dhir and Saddler families into conflict and acrimony and ultimately to this action.
The claim
The claim arises from words spoken by the Defendant at a meeting of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, 169 Meanwood Road, Leeds ("the Church") on 19 July 2015. I will go into more detail below, but the meeting was primarily concerned with a complaint that had been lodged with the Church about the conduct of the Saddler family, in particular Andrew Saddler ("Mr Saddler"). Mr Saddler was, formerly, a member of the Church.
Mr Saddler married Eleanor in 2011. They are now separated. For at least part of their marriage, Mr Saddler's relationship with Reena continued. The Dhir family considered that the relationship between Reena and Mr Saddler was not a healthy one. They believed that he was exploiting her financially. As he was married, Andrew's relationship with their daughter was regarded as adulterous. So, in February 2015, the Dhir family complained to the Church about the relationship and what they perceived as the Defendant's knowledge and sanctioning of it.
Under its procedures, the Church could entertain such a complaint and ultimately, if substantiated, could sanction a member for his/her misconduct. And so it was that on 19 July 2015 members of the Church gathered to hear about the Dhir family complaint about the Saddlers. As a matter of chronology, Mr Saddler had left the Church earlier in 2015 and so by the time of the meeting it no longer had jurisdiction over him in respect of the Dhirs' complaint.
The Claimant, his wife, Ruchi and Rishi all attended the Church meeting. From the Saddler family, in attendance were the Defendant, her son, Clyde, and her daughter-in-law, Eleanor. The meeting was attended by others from the Church, including Emily Tebbs-Ogutu (a former member of the Church Board), who gave evidence at the trial. She was a friend of Eleanor and had become acquainted with Ruchi Dhir. One of the issues I have to decide is, so far as possible, how many people were in attendance at the meeting to hear the words that were later to become the basis of this slander claim.
What is clear, however, is that at the meeting, Ruchi Dhir addressed those present. She read from prepared notes. I need quote only part of these notes. I do not know whether they were read to the meeting word for word, but this will serve to capture a flavour of her presentation to the Church:
"Andrew came back in my sister's life in January 2014. He was and still is married to Ellie. I found out by accident about the relationship in July and confronted both my sister and Andrew by telephone… We have watched for 14 years as my sister has been abused, lied to and cheated by Andrew Saddler and it is very hard for a family as close as ours to watch. Time after time, Andrew has come back into my sister's life and led her on and then told her that he didn't really love her and never said he would marry her. Recently, when we had a meeting with the church elders after one elder had approached Andrew about his current extra marital affair, he simply said that he wanted out of his marriage with Ellie and to start a relationship with my sister: well as far as we, as Reena's family are concerned, this has always been to do with money and never to do with love. The evidence is staggering – apart from my sister's bank statements… showing payments over the years for his mortgage and other amenities, since July 2014, Andrew enjoyed two five star holidays paid for by my sister to Dubai and Thailand, staying in 7 star resorts… I have held back for fourteen years because, in my heart and religion, I believe people are and can be good. But I have stopped believing this in the case of Andrew Saddler and his mother. There is no care or love here, he has a habit. And he has a habit of manipulating women, be it my sister… or anyone else, for material gain…"
Reference was made by Ruchi Dhir to a meeting that she, her father and her brother Rishi had had with the Defendant at her home in September 2014 ("the September meeting"). Again, if the notes are accurate, she gave an account of this meeting to the Church. She claimed that the Defendant had said to the Dhirs that she would never accept Andrew's relationship with Reena and that she only had one daughter-in-law, Eleanor.
After Ruchi Dhir's presentation, the Defendant was given an opportunity to speak. There is some dispute over whether she spent time in her address criticising the Church and the way that it had behaved towards her in the handling of the Dhirs' complaint, but what is clear – and admitted by the Defendant – is that she said that, at the September meeting with the Dhirs at her home, " he [the Claimant] threatened to slit my throat".
It is the publication of those words, to the assembled congregation of the Church, that has given rise to this claim.
Much time has been devoted, at the trial, to an analysis of what was said at this meeting, by whom and in what order. The Defendant complains that she was ambushed at the meeting and that the Church had denied her a fair opportunity of dealing with allegations that were made against her. Even more time was spent on a detailed scrutiny of the events running-up to the meeting. Little of this is of any assistance in resolving the issues that have to be decided, but these events form the backdrop to this meeting.
Ostensibly, this evidence has been advanced because the Defendant relies upon a defence of truth, and in consequence, I have to decide who is telling the truth about what took place at the September meeting. Five people were present during the meeting – the Claimant, the Defendant, Ruchi (for part) and Rishi. Eleanor Saddler joined part way through the meeting. They have all given evidence during the trial. Two accounts of this meeting have been advanced. One of those accounts is not true. I have to resolve which. There are no contemporaneous documents to shed light on which account is true. In consequence, each side has attacked the credibility of the opposing side's witnesses and their account of the meeting. It is this issue of credibility that has propelled the parties far and wide in search of material to undermine the credibility of each other and the witnesses who have been called. I will deal below, when I come to deal with the defence of truth, with how much of this credibility evidence was ultimately of any assistance to me in resolving the issues of who is telling the truth about what took place at the September meeting.
The Proceedings
A letter marked " letter before action" was sent by the Claimant to the Defendant on 6 August 2015. In it, the Claimant sought a retraction in writing from the Defendant of the allegation that he had threatened to slit her throat. He indicated that, if such a retraction was not forthcoming, he would pursue a case of slander against the Defendant.
The Defendant did not respond to that letter. The matter rested there until, on 15 July 2016, solicitors instructed by the Claimant wrote again to the Defendant to complain about what she was alleged to have said at the 19 July 2015 meeting of the Church. The solicitors sought from the Defendant a written apology, an undertaking that she would not repeat the allegation, compensation for the damage to the Claimant's reputation and his legal costs. If there was a response to this letter, it has not featured at the trial.
Clearly mindful of the limitation period for defamation claims, on 14 July 2016, a Claim Form had been issued. It was not served on the Defendant until much later and Particulars of Claim were not served until around 8 November 2016. In his statement of case, the Claimant set out the words he alleged that the Defendant had spoken and contended that they meant that:
"(a) the claimant has criminal tendencies;
(b) in particular, that he was given to threats of violence, and
(c) specifically, murderous threats against the Defendant."
The Defendant dealt with the early stages of the litigation (and all the way to a couple of weeks before trial) acting in person, assisted by her son, Clyde, who has legal qualifications and experience. She filed her Defence on 8 December 2016. Perfectly candidly, the Defendant accepted that she had spoken the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muyang Matilda Epse Hills v Angie Bridget Fomukong Epse Tabe (Aka Esanza Mateke, Bridget Benjamin)
...and that there is firm evidence that no one thought any the less of the claimant by reason of the publication …” (emphasis added). 23 In Dhir v Saddler [2018] 4 WLR 1, Nicklin J said at [55]: “In my judgment, the authorities demonstrate that it is the quality of the publishees not their qu......
-
David Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd
...probability of harm to reputation caused by publication of the offending statement must be proved as a matter of fact. 38 Nicklin J in Dhir v Saddler [2017] EWHC 3155 (QB), [2018] 4 WLR 1 (QBD) at [54] – [55], a slander case, made the following observations about the issue of serious harm......
-
Fiona George v Linda Cannell
...extent of publication, seriousness of harm caused is not merely an arithmetical test: such assessment is not simply a “numbers game”: see Dhir v Saddler [2017] EWHC 3155 (QB); [2018] 4 W.L.R.1 at [55] (this was pre- Lachaux). In Hodges v Naish [2021] EWHC 1805 (QB) Richard Parkes QC cons......
-
Rodney Goldsmith v Michael Bissett-Powell
...percolation and that there is firm evidence that no one thought any the less of the claimant by reason of the publication …” 148 In Dhir v Saddler [2018] 4 WLR 1, [55] Nicklin J said at [55]: “In my judgment, the authorities demonstrate that it is the quality of the publishees not their qu......
-
High Court Disapplies Limitation Period And Considers Serious Harm In Slander Claim
...noted that Lachaux was a libel case but said that the s 1 serious harm test must also apply to slander. He referred to Dhir v Saddler [2017] EWHC 3155 (QB), which was a slander case, in which Nicklin J found that the requirement is to show serious harm caused to the reputation of the claima......
-
Instagram food fight: Court clarifies approach to social media defamation
...Quality over quantity when it comes to extent of publication, Court confirms Her Honour relied on the test set out in Dhir v Saddler [2017] EWHC 3155 (QB) at [55] in relation to the extent of publication on social Dhir set out that it is the "quality of the publications not their quantity t......