Oliver v Shaikh

Oliver v Shaikh

The Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim are bare denials, non-compliant with CPR, and do not disclose any reasonable grounds for defending the claim or bringing a counterclaim. The evidence is overwhelming that the Defendant is responsible for the website and its harassing content. The conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Summary judgment is granted for the Claimant, and a permanent injunction is appropriate to restrain further harassment.

Parties
Claimant: His Honour Judge Simon Oliver; Defendant: Javed Shaikh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment on Application to Strike Out Defence and Counterclaim, Summary Judgment, and Permanent Injunction
Outcome
Defence and Counterclaim struck out; summary judgment for Claimant; permanent injunction granted restraining Defendant from harassing Claimant.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Defamation, Judicial Immunity, Freedom of Expression, Civil Restraint Orders, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Tort Civil Procedure Human Rights Harassment Defamation Judicial Immunity Freedom of Expression Civil Restraint Orders +2 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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Honour Judge Simon Oliver

Claimant

Javed Shaikh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment on Application to Strike Out Defence and Counterclaim, Summary Judgment, and Permanent Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim should be struck out for non-compliance with CPR
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be entered for the Claimant on the harassment claim
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim are bare denials, non-compliant with CPR, and do not disclose any reasonable grounds for defending the claim or bringing a counterclaim. The evidence is overwhelming that the Defendant is responsible for the website and its harassing content. The conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Summary judgment is granted for the Claimant, and a permanent injunction is appropriate to restrain further harassment.

Court Disposition

Defence and Counterclaim struck out; summary judgment for Claimant; permanent injunction granted restraining Defendant from harassing Claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim struck out under CPR r 3.4(2)
  • Summary judgment entered for Claimant