Yvonne Ameyaw v Christina McGoldrick
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Steyn |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 1741 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 02 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2020-000089 |
[2020] EWHC 1741 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE
Case No: QB-2020-000089
The Claimant appeared in person
Rupert Paines (instructed by Fladgate LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 1 July 2020
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)
A. Introduction
The Defendants' application dated 30 March 2020 for the determination of certain preliminary issues and to strike out and/or obtain summary judgment in their favour, was listed for a hearing on 1 July 2020.
At the hearing on 1 July 2020, I made the following orders:
i) The Claimant's application for her interim injunction application dated 30 June 2020 to be heard at the hearing on 1 July 2020 is refused;
ii) The Claimant's application for parts of the Defendants' hearing bundle to be struck out and ruled inadmissible is refused;
iii) The Claimant's application for her McKenzie friend, Mr Ogilvy, to be permitted to make oral submissions on her behalf is refused; and
iv) The hearing of the Defendant's application dated 30 March 2020 is adjourned to 10.30am on Friday 3 July 2020.
I gave brief reasons orally for each of these decisions. This judgment explains my reasons in more detail and in writing, as requested by the Claimant.
B. The procedural history
The claim was issued, together with Particulars of Claim on 9 January 2020. The precise scope of the claim may be a matter for argument at the hearing on 3 July 2020, but it is clear that the causes of action include claims for libel, malicious falsehood, breach of confidence and misuse of private information. The Defence, on behalf of all the Defendants, was filed on 10 February 2020. Directions questionnaires were filed on 20 March 2020. The Claimant has not filed a Reply.
On 30 March 2020, the Defendants filed an application seeking:
i) the determination of preliminary issues on (a) the meaning of certain statements of which the Claimant complains; (b) whether those statements are defamatory of the Claimant at common law or under s.1 of the Defamation Act 2013; and whether the statements complained of are statements of fact or opinion;
ii) an order striking out the Claimant's claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or (b); and
iii) an order for summary judgment under CPR part 24 and/or s.8 Defamation Act 1996 against the Claimant on the whole of her claim, because she has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue and there is no other compelling reason why the claim or issue should be disposed of at a trial.
The Defendants' application notice drew the Claimant's attention to the provisions of Part 24 of the CPR and the Practice Direction supplementing that Part and informed her that:
“Under rule 24.5(1), if the respondent wishes to rely on written evidence at the hearing, she must —
(a) file the written evidence; and
(b) serve copies on every other party to the application at least 7 days before the summary judgment hearing.”
The Claimant did not file evidence in response to the Defendants' application.
On Monday 15 June 2020, the Court sent a notice which stated:
“The Application hearing for the above case has been placed in the warned list for the week commencing 29 th June 2020 before a Judge.”
The notice asked the parties to liaise with a view to agreeing their dates in this period and to provide such dates to the Queen's Bench listing office. I have only seen the copy of this notice that was sent directly to the Defendant. However, it is apparent from the Claimant's response at 18.46 on 15 June 2020, as well as from subsequent emails on 16 June 2020, that the Defendants' solicitor emailed a copy of this notice to the Claimant on 15 June 2020.
The Claimant wrote to the Court on 17 June 2020. She objected to the application being set down for a hearing, contending that she had not had proper notice. She said that she intended to make interim applications and it “would amount to a breach of natural justice if the Claimant were unreasonably denied the right to pursue applications for anonymity and to amend her claims before any other application is heard”. She also stated, without providing any further details, that she considered that there were good reasons why a hearing should not be held remotely but should proceed in person in a court room.
On Monday 22 June 2020, the Court sent a further notice which stated:
“The Strike Out Application has now been listed on the 1 st July 2020 for 3 hours – fixed. This is listed before a High Court Judge in the Media and Communications List.”
The hearing bundle only includes the copy of this notice that was sent directly to the Defendants. However, in case the Claimant had not received the notice directly from the Court, the Defendants' solicitor sent a copy by email to the Claimant on 22 June 2020 at 16.06 which she received, as is clear from her response at 17.18 the same day.
On 22 June 2020, the Claimant wrote to the Court asking for her letter of 17 June to be placed before the Judge in charge of the Media and Communications List.
On 26 June 2020 Warby J made a case management order, having considered (amongst other matters) the Claimant's letter of 17 June 2020. Warby J ordered that the hearing should proceed as a remote hearing. However, his order provided the Claimant with an opportunity to object to the hearing proceeding remotely, or to make representations as to the manner in which the remote hearing should be held. Any such representations were required to be filed by no later than 4pm on Monday 29 June 2020 and any factual propositions were required to be supported by written evidence. Warby J's order also provided an opportunity for the Defendants to respond to any such objections or representations, or evidence, by 2pm on Tuesday 30 June 2020.
The Defendants' skeleton argument was filed on 26 June 2020.
On Monday 29 June 2020, the Claimant applied for the hearing to proceed in person, rather than remotely. She attached submissions (entitled “statement of case”) to her application as well as her own witness statement and brief exhibit.
Having received the Claimant's application, I made enquiries (via my clerk) to see whether it was feasible to hold the hearing in a court room, and whether both parties would be content if the hearing were to proceed in a court room. As it was feasible and both parties agreed, I decided to grant the Claimant's application for the hearing to proceed in a court room (with some of the Defendants' representatives attending via video link, as they requested). In respect of the remote hearing issue, my order of 30 March 2020 stated:
1. The hearing of the Defendant's application dated 30 March 2020, which has been listed to be heard at 10.30am on Wednesday 1 July 2020, shall proceed as a hearing physically in court, in the Royal Courts of Justice, with the Claimant (and those accompanying her) and the Defendants' barrister and solicitor attending in person.
2. Paragraph 1 of the order of Warby J of 26 June 2020, which had provided for a remote hearing, is varied accordingly.
…
5. The Court will endeavour to enable the Defendants/those of their representatives not physically attending Court to attend via remote video link. The Court will liaise with the parties regarding the practical arrangements.
Reasons
1. The Claimant has made representations, and submitted evidence, in accordance with paragraph 2 of the order of Warby J of 26 June 2020, objecting to the hearing proceeding remotely. She submits that justice would be best served through a hearing in person. She raises concerns about her ability to engage in a hearing via a video platform from her home, having regard to her lack of suitable seating, inadequate Wi-Fi, lack of experience using Teams, and concerns about the privacy of her home environment.
2. Although I consider that a remote hearing could be conducted fairly, particularly if the Court were to set up a practice session (as is usual) to ensure the parties are able to connect to the video platform without any difficulty, and to allow breaks as required by the parties, I am concerned that the Claimant (who is acting in person) perceives that she would be disadvantaged by a remote hearing. The Claimant wishes to attend a hearing physically in court (with two persons accompanying her to provide support). The Defendants have confirmed that they are content for the hearing to be held in court, and for the Defendants' barrister and one representative to attend in person. The Court is able to hold this hearing physically in court, having taken appropriate precautions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, including ensuring physical distancing in court.
3. In the circumstances, I consider that it is in the interests of justice for the hearing to proceed in court, rather than remotely.
…
8. The Defendants have asked whether it would be possible for the Defendants' client representatives who are unable to attend the hearing in person to attend via a video link. I consider that it is permissible to hold a hearing physically in court with some participants (i.e. parties or their representatives) attending via a video link: see CPR 32 PD, Annex III. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, it is in the interests of all parties to limit the number of people physically in court. In these circumstances, I consider that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yvonne Ameyaw v Christina McGoldrick
...Claimant applies under the Barrell jurisdiction for amendments to be made to the judgment I delivered on 2 July 2020: Ameyaw v PwC [2020] EWHC 1741 (QB) (“the Judgment”), or for it to be “expunged” in its entirety; and iv) The Claimant applies for a stay of proceedings pending determinatio......