Oliver v Shaikh [2019] EWHC 3389 (QB) (10 December 2019)

Oliver v Shaikh [2019] EWHC 3389 (QB) (10 December 2019)

The Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim are struck out for non-compliance with the CPR and as bare denials. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes the Defendant is responsible for the harassing website and publications. The Defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim. Summary judgment is entered for the Claimant. The conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and is not protected by freedom of expression. A final injunction is necessary and proportionate.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3389
Parties
Claimant: His Honour Judge Simon Oliver; Defendant: Javed Shaikh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Harassment Claim Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997 / Application for Strike Out, Summary Judgment, and Final Injunction
Outcome
Claimant's application granted; Defence and Counterclaim struck out; summary judgment for Claimant; final injunction granted against Defendant.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Freedom of Expression, Judicial Immunity
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Harassment Summary Judgment Strike Out Freedom of Expression Judicial Immunity

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Honour Judge Simon Oliver

Claimant

Javed Shaikh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Harassment Claim Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997 / Application for Strike Out, Summary Judgment, and Final Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim should be struck out for non-compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be entered for the Claimant on the harassment claim
  3. 3 Whether a final injunction should be granted restraining the Defendant from further harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim are struck out for non-compliance with the CPR and as bare denials. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes the Defendant is responsible for the harassing website and publications. The Defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim. Summary judgment is entered for the Claimant. The conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and is not protected by freedom of expression. A final injunction is necessary and proportionate.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application granted; Defence and Counterclaim struck out; summary judgment for Claimant; final injunction granted against Defendant.

Orders

  • Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim struck out
  • Summary judgment entered for Claimant