Mr Sayed Hussein v William Hill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT,Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 25 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 20 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ04X04027 |
[2006] EWHC 25 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ04X04027
Mr Hussein in Person
Anna Coppola and Richard Munden (instructed by Wragge and Co) for the defendant
Hearing dates: 12 th January 2006
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.
This is the hearing of a Pre Trial Review in an action for slander and libel commenced on 14 th December 2004. The brief details of the claim set out in the claim form by the claimant himself read as follows:
"The defendants between the March 04 and December 04 have defamed the claimant by notices stating the claimant was a racist a con man and trouble maker. They have carried on a campaign of slander via one Richard Crimp and two other managers calling the claimant racist, con man, thief and cheat in front of hundreds of witnesses and criminal intimidation. Value to be assessed £100,000."
The claim is closely linked to earlier proceedings as appears from paragraph 1 and 2 of the Particulars of Claim dated 3 rd January 2005, which include the following:
"1. Arising out of the claimants complaints against her Ladyship Mrs Hallett meeting defence counsel in another case before this Hon. Court. The complaints were also against this defendant, their solicitors and counsel. As a result of all of claimants actions the defendants in their fury took all of the actions as hereunder.
2. The defendants caused a poster to be published describing the claimant as a racist a con man and a very dangerous person …"
By a consent order dated 2 nd November 2005 the trial has been fixed for 6 th February 2006 before a judge and jury estimated to last eight to ten days. It is therefore important that so far as possible I should resolve all outstanding preliminary matters in this hearing.
A Defence was served on 19 th January 2005. There is a complete denial of publication of a poster or any other words defamatory of the claimant. There then follows a section headed "Abuse of Process" covering some three pages of the document, in which the defendants set out their case that:
"The claimant's motive in bringing these proceedings is not to vindicate his reputation but rather to continue a personal campaign of vexing and inconveniencing the defendant and/or to gain a financial advantage by bringing a grossly exaggerated claim against the defendant in the hope of persuading the defendant to settle out of court or in the hope that he might succeed in his false claim. As such, the proceedings are an abuse of process and should be struck out."
The Defence refers to a number of other proceedings involving these parties and it is necessary to refer briefly to these. The history of the relationship between these parties starts on 8 th or 9 th September 2001. There is no dispute that on 9 th September 2001 the claimant was assaulted by Stephen Whyms, who was then an employee of the defendant firm of bookmakers. There was at about that time, apparently on 8 th September, a difference between the parties about a ticket which the claimant alleged to be a winning bet, but which the defendant disputed.
On 15 th February 2002 the claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for personal injury, loss of a watch and slander (case number HQ 02 X00501). The claim was initially limited to £57,500, but at the beginning of the trial the claimant applied for permission to amend his Particulars of Claim as he put it to "remove the limit on the damages claimed" and to claim "damages for aggravated assault", the aggravation being the way in which this litigation had been allegedly conducted by the defendants. The assault occurred at the Locarno branch of William Hill in Streatham. Mr Whyms who is of Afro-Caribbean origin, was employed there as a deputy manager cashier. The case was heard before Hallett J (as she then was) on 26 th and 27 th January and 3 rd February 2004. She gave judgment on 18 th February 2004 the neutral citation is [2004] EWHC 208(QB).
Hallett J concluded her judgment as follows:
"46 I have no doubt that Mr Hussein when he realised he had a claim against the defendants deliberately exaggerated it in the hope of persuading the defendants to settle out of court. He has involved others in concocting a grossly inflated claim. When the defendants refused to settle, he embarked upon a campaign against them. This included making wild allegations of lies, racism and attempts to pervert the course of justice. …
48….I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that Mr Whyms struck Mr Hussein three times including twice to the head or face. I am not satisfied that there was any blow to the head at all let alone one causing pain or injury but leaving his sunglasses perched on his head. I am satisfied there was probably one blow, maybe two, to the area of the right upper arm.
49 I reject Mr Hussein's evidence about the effect of such an assault upon him. If he suffered any loss of memory concentration or absentmindedness, as described by his witnesses, such symptoms date from a long time after the assault. I consider it far more likely that they are attributable to his age and pre-existing heart condition and diabetes. I am not satisfied that he was wearing a watch currently worth £7,500 that fell from his right wrist and went missing as a result of the assault.
50 I am satisfied that although the claimant is entitled to judgment, as is conceded by the defendants, and to damages, the damages should be only nominal. The sum will be £50 in total. … I am also minded to have a copy of this judgment sent to his professional body [the claimant is an accountant] and I am considering sending the papers to the Director of Public Prosecution….. "
The claimant applied for permission to appeal. Amongst other matters he raised two new points. One was that a receipt for the allegedly missing watch had been suppressed by the defendants. Another was that Hallett J had had some improper private contact with the defendants and was trying to cover her tracks. In his submissions to me at this hearing Mr Hussein referred to both these matters on a number of occasions. Both these, and his other grounds of appeal, were considered in a detailed judgment delivered by Mummery LJ on 17 th June 2004. The neutral citation number is [2004] EWCA Civ 899. Having considered all these matters Mummery LJ refused permission to appeal. This judgment should be read with the judgments of Hallett J and Mummery LJ.
About a month later the claimant started his second action by a claim form issued on 27 th July 2004 (claim number HQ 04X02328) naming four defendants. The defendants named are William Hill plc, each of solicitors Berrymans Lace Mawer, counsel Ms Foster, who represented the defendant in the first action, and Dr Fry the consultant who gave expert medical evidence for the defendant in that action. The brief details of the claim as set out in the form are as follows:
"In an action for damages for assault admitted by the First defendant the defendants approached the trial judge ex-parti to prevent the claimant from producing documentary evidence which proved that the defendant's expert withdrew parts of his medical report. The medical report submitted by the Fourth defendant was a totally false report done in consideration of a large bribe. To further pervert the Course of Justice Third defendant [that is counsel] met the trial judge ex-parti to prevent exposing the perversion of Justice by all the defendants. This was a denial of my Human Rights and also my Fundamental Rights. This was also contrary to common law prevention of corruption. Value unlimited. "
In a Statement of Claim dated 13 th August 2004 the claimant enlarged upon these allegations. In addition, he alleged that the transcript of the tape recording of the proceedings had been forged, that "the Judge is now unlawfully refusing to release [it] for experts to examined as to editing and voice analysis", and that "the defendants and more importantly their legal representatives had corrupted the courts system to alter the mechanical recordings in the control and custody of" the Court. The final paragraphgraph reads:
"8 The claimants requests that in view of the seriousness of this action and its value in excess of £5,000,000 the case be allocated to a jury trial to prevent this defendant from perverting the course of justice again."
On 10 th November 2004 Master Eyre made an order:
"Upon considering the claim form and 'Statement of Claim' and without a hearing and pursuant to rule 3.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and it appearing to the court therefrom that this action is merely a collateral attack on the verdict of Hallett J in a previous action by the claimant (HQ 02X00501), and accordingly amounts to an abuse of process it is ordered (1) that the claim form be struck out and the action dismissed (2) that the claimant pay the defendants costs with liberty to the parties to seek a summary assessment".
The third action, started a month later, is the slander action in which this pre trial review is being heard. A fourth action was started by the claimant on 23 rd August 2005 naming as defendants a Mr Tim Reynolds and Mr William Hill PLC. The brief details of the claim in that action read:
"The First defendants on the instructions of the Second defendants did on 5 th June saw off the wheel nut which held the weight of my car body. I saw the First defendant and employee of the Second defendant key my car. The same day when I got into my car within three miles the front...
To continue reading
Request your trial