Kabir Kumar Manohar Jagwani v Poonam Joshi Alles
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Murray |
| Judgment Date | 30 October 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 2887 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2019-003335 |
| Date | 30 October 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 2887 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Murray
Case No: QB-2019-003335
Mr Gwyn Evans (instructed by RVS Solicitors Ltd) for the Claimant
The Defendant appeared in person.
Hearing date: 22 October 2019
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Murray
This matter concerns an application dated 10 September 2019 made by the claimant, Mr Kabir Jagwani, against the defendant, Ms Poonam Joshi Alles, for an interim injunction in the following terms:
“restraining the Defendant from further harassment whether by publishing any further defamatory material about the circumstances of the Claimant's marriage to and divorce from his ex-wife or inciting protests or violence against him or members of his family or encouraging her followers to share the article she published in Indian Ladies UK on 6 July 2019 or her subsequent posts. The Claimant also seeks for the operators of any such website on which the Defendant's defamatory statements against the Claimant are posted, to remove these statements.”
Mr Jagwani has also brought a claim against Ms Alles, issued on 10 September 2019, in which he seeks a permanent injunction in the same terms, a declaration as to the falsity of the material published and/or posted by Ms Alles and aggravated and exemplary damages for defamation and harassment pursuant to section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Application for adjournment
At the beginning of the hearing, I heard an application by the claimant to adjourn the hearing on the basis that the claimant's originally instructed counsel, a specialist in defamation and harassment claims, had a last-minute professional diary clash. Having heard submissions from Mr Gwyn Evans, of counsel, in favour of the adjournment and from Ms Alles, who appeared in person, in opposition to the adjournment, I refused the adjournment on the basis that the reason put forward was not sufficient to counterbalance the fact that the defendant, who was appearing in person, had attended and was prepared to proceed, that I had a duty, in accordance with the overriding objective, to ensure that the matter was dealt with expeditiously and that I perceived there would be no unfairness to the claimant in proceeding.
The diary clash appears to have been caused by a mistake of the originally instructed counsel. Mr Evans noted, quite properly, that he is not a specialist in defamation and harassment claims, I had, however, a full hearing bundle, including two detailed witness statements from the claimant with various exhibits, and a written position statement and skeleton submissions prepared by originally instructed counsel. I concluded that Mr Evans was capable of presenting the case on behalf of the claimant as it stood on the papers, as indeed he subsequently did, very clearly, succinctly and professionally. Accordingly, I concluded that the appropriate course, in accordance with the overriding objective, was to refuse the application for an adjournment.
The interim injunction application
I then proceeded to hear the claimant's application for an interim injunction. After hearing submissions by Mr Evans and by Ms Alles, followed by a brief reply by Mr Evans, I refused the interim injunction application, giving brief reasons at the hearing and indicating that a written judgment would follow. This is that written judgment.
The parties
Mr Jagwani is a secondary school teacher and assistant head teacher at the Cumberland School, a mixed state secondary school at Oban Close, London E13. He has been in the teaching profession for 13 years.
Ms Alles, who is also known as Poonam Joshi, is a journalist and a campaigner for women's rights, particularly those of Indian women. She was the proprietor of a volunteer organisation called Indian Ladies in UK CIC, a community interest company (Company no. 10065124) (“ILUK”), which campaigned on behalf of and worked to support first generation migrant Indian women in the United Kingdom as well as in India who fall victim to abuse and exploitation by non-resident Indian (“NRI”) men, that is, men of Indian ancestry settled in the West as well as those born to Indian-origin parents. Ms Alles says that ILUK is no longer a going concern, having been dissolved in May 2019. Ms Alles, however, continues to be interested in and to campaign for these issues.
Factual background
Some time prior to August 2017 the claimant met Ms Kiran Parwani on a dating app. Ms Parwani is also known as Kiran Liladhar. She is a Singapore national of Indian origin, who lives with her parents in India. After meeting on the dating app, Mr Jagwani and Ms Parwani started talking regularly on the telephone, and the relationship developed from there.
On 26 August 2017, Ms Parwani travelled to the UK with her parents. On 30 August 2017, Mr Jagwani and Ms Parwani were married at a civil ceremony in London, with Mr Jagwani's family and Ms Parwani's parents in attendance. Ms Parwani then flew back to India with her parents.
In December 2017, Mr Jagwani flew to India, for a wedding ceremony between him and Ms Parwani, which took place there on 29 December 2017. The wedding was followed by a honeymoon in Goa between 1 and 4 January 2018, immediately after which the claimant flew back alone to the UK.
Mr Jagwani says that he separated from Ms Parwani, for various reasons, after she failed to take a flight to join the claimant in the UK on 17 March 2018 as planned. He says that:
i) His reasons for separating from Ms Parwani were due to difficulties that had arisen between her family and his family, on various issues, both before and after the wedding, including most prominently where they were going to reside after marriage.
ii) His position was that he could not live separately from his mother, father and uncle, as they all have serious health issues and he and his sister provide care to them and support them financially.
iii) Ms Parwani had insisted that they should have separate accommodation from Mr Jagwani's parents and uncle.
Mr Jagwani says that he had arranged for Ms Parwani to have a spousal visa to come to the UK, however after she received her visa their disagreements were such that he concluded their relationship would not progress. He therefore informed her on 1 April 2018 that their marriage was over, and he contacted the Home Office and requested that her visa be cancelled.
Mr Jagwani petitioned in England for a divorce from Ms Parwani in or about August 2018. He obtained a decree nisi of divorce in England on 12 June 2019 and a decree absolute of divorce on 4 August 2019.
On 11 July 2018 Mr Jagwani received an email from a police officer in Indore in India notifying him that the prior day Ms Parwani had filed a complaint against him there alleging that he had deserted her and alleging that he, his parents and his sister had abused her physically and psychologically. During a conference call he had with an Indian police officer, Sub-Inspector Shukla, Mr Jagwani denied the allegations on behalf of himself, his parents and his sister.
On 22 August 2018 Mr Jagwani was informed that Ms Parwani had made a further complaint to the police in Indore that he, together with his parents, had prior to their marriage demanded a dowry from Ms Parwani and her family, which is a criminal offence in India. He denies this allegation.
According to Mr Jagwani, Ms Parwani also made allegations that he had caused her financial loss, for example, by insisting that the wedding in India be a large one with numerous guests (roughly 1,500), by accepting gifts from her and in other ways. She has also alleged that Mr Jagwani raped and sexually abused her on their honeymoon in Goa. He refutes all of these allegations and says that there is no evidence to support them.
In her response to Mr Jagwani's divorce petition, which she received in September 2018, Ms Parwani stated that she had initiated three cases in India against Mr Jagwani, two of which were also filed against his parents and sister. They relate to the allegations I have briefly summarised and an action for spousal maintenance. These cases were filed by Ms Parwani in June and July 2018.
Procedural history
The interim injunction application initially came before Pepperall J on 23 September 2019, but, as Ms Alles had had only informal notice of the hearing and was not present, Pepperall J ordered that the application be adjourned to the first available date after 3 October 2019, to allow for Ms Alles to have formal notice and to attend.
At the beginning of the hearing before me, Mr Evans noted that the claimant had not received notice from the court, as required by CPR 10.4, that the defendant had filed an Acknowledgement of Service, although Ms Alles claimed that she had filed one. After enquiries were made, it was confirmed that the court received her Acknowledgement of Service on 11 October 2019.
The evidence
In the hearing bundle prepared by the claimant for his interim injunction application, in addition to the claim form and particulars of claim, I had two witness statements prepared by the claimant dated 10 September 2019 and 21 October 2019, together with various exhibits to each witness statement. The hearing bundle also included correspondence between the claimants' solicitors, RVS Solicitors Ltd, and the defendant. I had the opportunity prior to the hearing to read through all of that material, although the exhibits were not all read in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harassment And The Handmaid's Tale
...injunction against another for harassment and defamation? The High Court recently revisited this issue in the case of Jagwani v Alles [2019] EWHC 2887 (QB). The claimant, a teacher, made an application for an interim injunction to prevent the defendant, a journalist and campaigner, from sha......