Hall v Hibbert & Anor [2024] EWHC 1665 (KB) (28 June 2024)

Hall v Hibbert & Anor [2024] EWHC 1665 (KB) (28 June 2024)

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because the Master and Steyn J correctly applied the summary judgment test and s 11 Civil Evidence Act 1968; the Appellant's evidence was wholly insufficient and fantastical, and there was no real prospect of success on any issue; the process was fair and the Appellant was not denied a fair trial.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1665 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Richard D Hall; Respondent/claimant: Martin Hibbert; Respondent/claimant: Eve Hibbert (by her mother and litigation friend Sarah Gilbard)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (civil) / Post Summary Judgment, Permission to Appeal (renewed Oral Application)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Harassment, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection, Civil Evidence, Appeals
Civil Procedure Media Law Tort Law Summary Judgment Harassment Misuse of Private Information Data Protection Civil Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard D Hall

Appellant/defendant

Martin Hibbert

Respondent/claimant

Eve Hibbert (by her mother and litigation friend Sarah Gilbard)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (civil) / Post Summary Judgment, Permission to Appeal (renewed Oral Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was properly granted on the issues of the Manchester Arena bombing, the Respondents' presence and injuries, and causation
  2. 2 Whether s 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 was properly applied to Hashem Abedi's conviction
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant had any real prospect of success on the issues

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because the Master and Steyn J correctly applied the summary judgment test and s 11 Civil Evidence Act 1968; the Appellant's evidence was wholly insufficient and fantastical, and there was no real prospect of success on any issue; the process was fair and the Appellant was not denied a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission to appeal refused
  • Summary judgment on the identified issues stands