As you will know Judge Nicklin at a Preliminary Issues Hearing on 14.2.19. issued a judgment on 15.2.19. which found that allegations of anti-Semitism are not statements of fact as per s.2 of the Defamation Act 2013 but statements of opinion as per 2.3 of the Act. All that the Defendant has to do is to hold an honest opinion as to the subject matter rather than having to prove that what he has said is true.
We initially appealed to the Court of Appeal but that was unsuccessful. The cost of which was £1,200 in counsel’s fees.
Despite this adverse verdict we agreed that it was important to proceed even though proving that the Defendant is malicious, although quite obvious to most people, may be difficult to prove legally.
We therefore submitted an Amended Particulars of Claim – 3.4.19.
RPC, solicitors for the CAA then sent us a letter dated 24.4.19. threatening summary judgment. What this means is that they are asking the Judge to rule that we have no prospects of success and that they should not have to face a full trial. RPC wrote:
“Costs of over £60,000 (including VAT) have already been incurred by our client in responding to your claim. These costs will only increase as this case progresses. In the short term, costs will be incurred pleading an Amended Defence, considering your Amended Reply and preparing for the upcoming CMC. If you have not discontinued your claim by that point, our client will be applying for summary judgment against you on the basis that you have no real prospect of success in your claim, with such an application to be heard at the CMC. You will be ordered to pay all of our client's costs, subject to detailed assessment, if and when that application is successful.”
I wrote back refusing to be blackmailed and rejecting their suggestion on 2nd May. RPC were then forced to submit an Amended Defence on 10.5.19. to which we submitted a lengthy Amended Reply – 26.6.19. This took considerable work and was 26 pages long. The cost of counsel’s fees was £7,200.
Because I don’t have a solicitor the drafting of letters such as those above are my responsibility.
RPC then made what is called a Request for Further Information on 16.7.19. and sent a letter of the same date requesting 52 documents. They gave me 14 and 7 days respectively.
I responded on 17.7.19. informing them that their request was unreasonable and that I would not be complying with their time limits.
RPC then backed off and agreed to a more responsible timetable, although I considered much of their request for documents to be vexatious. They agreed to push the dates back to 9th and 16th August.
I sent my Response to Request for Further Documents on 5.8.19. As you will see in response to Questions 3, 8, 12, 28 and 30, I pointed out that they were already in possession of the said documents! In response to Question 46 I pointed out that the documents in question were on their own client’s website!
A week later I sent a Response to their Request for Further Information – 12.8.19. which I was happy to do
In my final 2 paragraphs of my response to their request for further information I quoted John Prine who wrote that ‘a question ain't really a question if you know the answer too.’ which I suggested best sums up the Request for Further Information. ‘All the answers were already known. It is I assume part and parcel of the Defendant’s legal gamesmanship. ‘
However I expressed the hope that having fully answered the questions I trusted that the Defendant now fully understood the case that he has to answer and that he will now concede that his case has no merit.
Two months later I have not heard anything else. I assume that the request for summary judgment has now been abandoned and that the case will proceed normally.
We will next be proceeding to a Case and Costs Management Conference which will set the basis of the full hearing. I shall of course keep people posted. I shall be appealing for further funds in order that I can continue to employ a barrister to act as an advocate.
I hope that as many people as possible will come to the full hearing both for support and for the entertainment value!
Name of Account: BUWC,
Sort Code: 09-01-50
Account Number: 04094107
or to BUWC at PO Box 173, Rottingdean, Brighton BN51 9EZ
or to PayPal tonygreenstein111@gmail.com
Best wishes
Tony Greenstein