Khalid Mahmood Ansari v Timothy Knowles and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Moore-Bick,Lord Justice Aikens,Lord Justice Vos |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 1448 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2012/3071 |
| Date | 14 November 2013 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 1448
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mr. Justice Eady
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Moore-Bick
Lord Justice Aikens
and
Lord Justice Vos
Case No: A2/2012/3071
Miss Adrienne Page Q.C. (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard) for the appellants
Mr. John Samson (instructed by Brabners LLP) for the respondent
In August 2007 some of the academic staff of Manchester Metropolitan University ("MMU"), including the claimant, Mr. Ansari, and the first defendant, Dr. Knowles, visited Lithuania in connection with a joint project to establish a postgraduate course in tourism at the University of Vilnius ("Vilnius"). Among the staff of Vilnius who hosted the visit was the third defendant, Ms. Viktorija Zilinskaite. In December 2007 academic staff from Vilnius, including Ms. Zilinskaite, paid a return visit to Manchester to continue the discussions. On 7 th December 2007 Ms. Zilinskaite sent an email to two of the academic staff, Mr. John Theodore and Mr. Michael Jeffrey, each of whom had some responsibility for supervising Mr. Ansari's work in connection with the Vilnius project. In a report attached to the email she criticised Mr. Ansari's professional competence and personal conduct. She also sent a copy to the first defendant, Dr. Knowles, who admitted that he had sent copies on to two members of the Human Resources Department, Ameela Gabriel and Audrey Rodgers, and Cath Fairhurst, Head of the Clothing Design and Technology Department.
The report, which has become known as the "Vilnius Memo", contained the following statements:
"Having attended the lecture and seminar on service quality in tourism with Khalid Ansari 3–4 December 2007, the following was observed:
1. The lectures lack tourism/hospitality/industry relevance;
2. The lecture notes and references were obsolete;
3. The content of the lecture was more suitable to undergraduate level rather than postgraduate;
4. The information provided in the slides had not been properly updated (during the lecture the information on ISO standards 9002 and 9003 was presented as if the standards were still applicable, but the latter standards had been merged with 9001 seven years ago);
5. The content of the lecture was more pertinent to product quality rather than service quality (e.g. 8 of Garvin's dimensions are applied to products, rather than services);
6. The demonstrated slide material was inconsistent both in content and direction;
7. The demonstrated teaching methodology was poor (e.g. lack of communication with students, no dialogue or debate promoted).
…
K Ansari had been requested to supplement and correct the service quality module in September 2007, but no additional information had been received. Also, K Ansari did not communicate properly and effectively with the Lithuanian counterpart Dr R Adomaitiene on the issues of improving the module. Therefore, the ability and qualifications of K Ansari may be treated as insufficient for delivery of the module materials required.
The drawbacks on the Events Management module developed by K Ansari are the same as mentioned above for service quality module (no lecture notes, inconsistent slide materials, poor referencing). Therefore, VU team has identified an urgent need to expand the team of MMU experts to develop this module … .
On a personal note, K Ansari was considered as overpowering to a point of being arrogant; pompous and dictatorial in his conversations to the Lithuanian counterparts; he was observed making false promises with respect to this project and possible future projects that are not his responsibility; there was clearly an inability to complete tasks. When asked by J Sekliuckiene to provide scientific articles by K Ansari — it was obvious that he has no publication record.
During the visit to Lithuania 6–7 August, K Ansari was observed excessively abusing alcohol on two successive days of the visit and he was not able to concentrate on the work to be completed. K Ansari talked down to the Lithuanian counterpart developing Strategic Management Module and requested T Knowles to simplify the material provided to VU, doubting the qualifications of Lithuanian counterparts (fortunately, T Knowles ignored that request). Furthermore, K Ansari behaved sexually inappropriately, three times inviting the Lithuanian Project Coordinator V Zilinskaite for a 'night cap' in front of other people present at dinner. This is unprofessional, unethical and is regarded as sexual harassment. He has compromised the excellent work of numerous people at MMU which is unacceptable. He has also compromised the MMU and VU relationship with his actions.
Given the above, VU experts find it very difficult to work with K Ansari both professionally and personally.
The issues related to a range of aspects concerning the Strategic Tourism Management module have been clarified between Dr J Sekliuckiene and Dr T Knowles. Dr Knowles's support in these matters is appreciated and particularly his willingness to share teaching material.
…
Memo developed by
Viktorija Zilinskaite
Project coordinator and Expert"
On 1 st December 2008 Mr. Ansari brought proceedings for defamation against Ms. Zilinskaite as publisher of the Vilnius Memo and Vilnius (on the grounds that it was vicariously liable for her actions) and also against Dr. Knowles and MMU as his employer. Dr. Knowles was said to have been a co-author of the Vilnius Memo and to have re-published the same defamatory statements himself by forwarding it to the Dean, Professor Murray, and Dr. Dinah-Ann Rogers, the Deputy Postgraduate Programmes Leader. (Dr. Knowles denies that he sent the Vilnius Memo to either of them, but admits that he sent it to the three members of staff mentioned earlier). In addition Mr. Ansari alleged that Dr. Knowles had slandered him on two separate occasions. First, he said that in January or February 2008 Dr. Knowles had said to one of his colleagues at MMU, Mr. Michael Anthonisz, that Mr. Ansari had told some students at Vilnius that they did not need to earn their qualifications but could buy them as he had ("the first slander"). Second, he said that in March 2008 at a meeting held as part of the investigations into the allegations made in the Vilnius Memo Dr. Knowles had repeated the substance of the allegations it contained and had also accused Mr. Ansari of sexually harassing students ("the second slander").
In his particulars of claim Mr. Ansari included a claim for aggravated damages in support of which he alleged that Dr. Knowles had made the various statements complained of knowing that they were false or recklessly, not caring whether they were true or false. In fact, in most cases the allegations relating to Mr. Ansari's personal conduct concerned matters that were within Dr. Knowles's direct knowledge, so that any question as to his state of mind should have been capable of being resolved without calling a great deal of evidence. However, the claim for aggravated damages was further supported by reference to a catalogue of complaints about the way in which Mr. Ansari said he had been treated by Dr. Knowles in relation to the Vilnius project and other academic matters. If true, it amounted to a sustained campaign of personal harassment.
In his defence Dr. Knowles denied that he had written the Vilnius Memo or that he had been involved in its publication to John Theodore or Michael Jeffrey, but he did admit having sent it to other members of staff. Both he and MMU pleaded that any publications of the Vilnius Memo had been made on occasions of qualified privilege and that the words complained of were true insofar as they meant that Mr. Ansari was not competent to deliver the modules he had undertaken to deliver for the project and had behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately. In support of the plea of justification they alleged that in producing materials for the project he had passed off as his own a substantial amount of material produced by others and copied from the internet. Thirty-eight separate instances were relied on in the defendants' defence. They also alleged that many of the materials produced by Mr. Ansari were unsuitable for the purposes of the project, thus further demonstrating that he lacked the level of professional competence required for it. The defendants also pleaded that the allegations of personal misconduct on the part of Mr. Ansari made in the Vilnius Memo and by Dr. Knowles in March 2008 were justified.
In his reply Mr. Ansari responded to the defence of justification in relation to the Vilnius Memo with an extensive riposte extending over 27 pages. The defence of justification in relation to the interview on 4 th March 2008 provoked a further 9 pages in response. The claim of qualified privilege was met by an allegation of malice on the part of Dr. Knowles. That involved not only an allegation of dishonesty in reporting matters of personal misconduct and his contribution to the Vilnius project, but also his repeating and extending the broader allegations of a sustained campaign of harassment against him on the part of Dr. Knowles.
In March 2012 Mr. Ansari settled his claim against Vilnius under which he received a payment of £112,500 inclusive of damages, interest and costs. In addition Vilnius made a statement in open court acknowledging that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gabriele Shaw (suing as the personal representative of the estates of William Ewan (Deceased)) v Medtronic Corevalve Llc (a Company incorporated in the USA) and Others
...as it is pursued as a claim for nominal damages, is an abuse of process for the reasons set out in Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] QB 946 and Ansari v Knowles [2013] EWCA Civ 1448. I do not propose to decide these arguments, which might arise (together no doubt with limitation issues) if the Cl......
-
Brenda Mary Brown v AB
...that judicial and court resources are appropriately and proportionately used in accordance with the requirements of justice.” 59 In Ansari v Knowles [2013] EWCA Civ 1448, Vos LJ cautioned, at [27], against allowing a Jameel abuse argument to descend into a mini-trial upon incomplete evidenc......
-
Craig Ames and Another v The Spamhaus Project Ltd and Another
...the facts deserve further examination. At a trial of preliminary issues the court can decide the relevant issues once and for all. In Ansari v Knowles [2013] EWCA Civ 1448 the issue of whether the claim represented Jameel abuse was tried as a preliminary issue: see [9]. This approach is all......
-
Michael Decker v Geoffrey William Hopcraft
...at the same time…At a trial of preliminary issues the court can decide the relevant issues once and for all. In Ansari v Knowles [2013] EWCA Civ 1448, the issue of whether the claim represented Jameel abuse was tried as a preliminary issue: see [9]. This approach is all the more appropriate......