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 being bare denials, non-compliant with the CPR, and disclosing no reasonable grounds for defending the claim. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the Defendant is responsible for the harassing website and online publications. The Defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim, and there is no compelling reason for a trial. Summary judgment is granted for the Claimant, and a final injunction is ordered to restrain further harassment.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3389 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: His Honour Judge Simon Oliver; Defendant: Javed Shaikh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Harassment Claim / 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 Applications, Freedom of Expression, Judicial Immunity
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Harassment Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications 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 6 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Honour Judge Simon Oliver

Claimant

Javed Shaikh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Harassment Claim / 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 (CPR)
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the Claimant on the harassment claim
  3. 3 Whether a final injunction restraining harassment should be granted against the Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim are struck out for being bare denials, non-compliant with the CPR, and disclosing no reasonable grounds for defending the claim. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the Defendant is responsible for the harassing website and online publications. The Defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim, and there is no compelling reason for a trial. Summary judgment is granted for the Claimant, and a final injunction is ordered to restrain further harassment.

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 are struck out.
  • Summary judgment entered for the Claimant on the harassment claim.