Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Limited

Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 1210 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES BUSINESS LIST (ChD) Case No: HC-2000-000004 Rolls Building Fetter Lane London, EC4A 1NL Tuesday, 21 May 2024 Before : MR JUSTICE FANCOURT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : VARIOUS CLAIMANTS Claimants - and - NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - David Sherborne, Kate Wilson and Ben Hamer (instructed by Hamlins LLP) for the Claimants Anthony Hudson KC, Ben Silverstone, Harry Lambert and Mariyam Kamil (instructed by Clifford Chance LLP) for the Defendant Hearing date: 20 March 2024 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - APPROVED JUDGMENT (provided on 13 May 2024) This judgment was handed down via hearing at 10.30 am on 21 May 2024 and by circulation to the parties or their representatives and by release to the National Archives High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Mr Justice Fancourt: Introduction 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. This judgment relates to an application dated 23 January 2024 (“the Application”) made by the remaining claimants in the fourth tranche of the Mobile Telephone Voicemail Interception Litigation (“MTVIL”) against the Defendant (“NGN”). There are about 42 remaining claimants at the date of this judgment, whose claims are due to be tried starting on about 15 January 2025. The individual claimants’ claims allege misuse of private information and breach of confidence by NGN, by carrying out illegal voicemail interception, the blagging of private information from third parties, and the use of private investigators (“PIs”) and other unlawful information gathering techniques (“UIG”) to extract their private information unlawfully over the period 1993-2012. Since March 2017, there has been an MTVIL generic statement of case (replacing earlier generic allegations), which alleges concealment of wrongdoing and destruction of evidence of wrongdoing by NGN. It sets out allegations that are intended to be common to all the individual claims and which each claimant adopts as part of their case. This, in its current form, is the Re-Amended Generic Particulars of Concealment and Destruction served in June 2020 (“GENPOC”). The Application is for permission to re-re-amend the GENPOC. Notice of intention to apply to re-re-amend was first given by the claimants on 28 November 2023, but no draft pleading accompanied it. This was not provided until 17 January 2024. I shall refer to the proposed re-re-amended version of the GENPOC as the “Draft GENPOC”. The amendments are very extensive indeed and are almost all vigorously opposed by NGN. I heard very compressed oral argument on the Application, over the course of a day, but both parties have produced voluminous written materials in support of those arguments. I have had to evaluate this at some length after the hearing, given the extent of the Application and of objections to it. Regrettably, that has meant that, as I suspected and warned the parties when I heard the Application, it has taken until now to appraise the Application fully (and a related application made by The Duke of Sussex that I heard over the following 2 days) and to prepare this judgment. In the judgment, I deal with the background to the GENPOC and its purpose, the content of the existing version and the amendments sought to be introduced in the Draft GENPOC, and then turn to the various heads of objection that NGN has raised. I deal with those objections with reference to some particular amendments that the claimants seek to introduce. Having explained the principles that I will apply in relation to the different categories of amendment and the various objections, I then set out, in brief summary only, in the Schedule to this judgment (which is based on different versions of similar tables that the parties annexed to their skeleton arguments), the reason or reasons for my decision to permit or refuse each of the individual amendments. Those brief reasons must be read in the light of the general principles addressed in the body of this judgment. Page 2 High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN The Generic Particulars of Concealment and Destruction 7. The title of the GENPOC is slightly misleading in that, whatever it was in the original March 2017 version, it is not limited to allegations of concealment and destruction. It also includes detailed allegations to support the claimants’ case that NGN indulged in habitual and widespread phone hacking, blagging and other UIG through PIs, both at the News of the World and at The Sun, from 1998 to 2011, and that this was known to senior editorial and management staff and executives of NGN. The GENPOC also now includes a generic case on the issue of how s.32 Limitation Act 1980 applies in general to the facts of the individual claims. 8. Before 2017, the generic allegations of concealment and destruction were set out in generic statements of case called the Weeting Generic Particulars of Claim (2012) and the Pinetree Generic Particulars of Claim (2016). The former started out as a template for individual claims to be pleaded, as a result of investigations by the Metropolitan Police Service (“MPS”) and notification by the MPS to individuals that they might have been victims of phone hacking. Both templates contain standard form allegations and the individual claimant inserted their personal details, material facts, articles relied on and other individual allegations before serving these particulars of claim. Once the allegations of concealment and destruction had been pleaded in the GENPOC, individual claims (somewhat ironically) tended to become more fully pleaded, and did not use the Weeting or Pinetree templates. That process has continued such that the most recently filed claimant-specific particulars of claim (“CSPoC”) are of very substantial (and in my view excessive) length and complexity. 9. All particulars of claim issued since 2017 have expressly incorporated and adopted the allegations made in the GENPOC, and indeed in Weeting and Pinetree standard form particulars, no doubt for the avoidance of doubt or erroneous omission. 10. As a result of continuing development and elaboration of the generic case and the content of the CSPoC, the Weeting and Pinetree standard allegations have largely, if not entirely, been overtaken and add nothing of substance to the allegations in the CSPoC of the remaining claimants and the GENPOC, as Mr Sherborne accepted. It follows that the GENPOC are now essentially the statement of case by which generic allegations of wrongdoing that are common to all the claims are advanced. 11. As originally pleaded, the GENPOC ran to about 70 pages of allegations (and particulars of allegations) of: knowledge on the part of senior executives, editorial staff and journalists of NGN of illegal and unlawful practices conducted on an habitual and widespread basis; and attempts made by those persons to conceal those practices and destroy evidence, and lie about what had been done. The style of the statement of case is to summarise the allegations that are made, plead certain facts, say what evidence the claimants will rely on at trial and what inferences the claimants will say should be drawn, and to set out multiple examples of matters which are said to justify conclusions about the knowledge or involvement of senior NGN employees. 12. Mann J gave permission for the GENPOC to be served in March 2017. It was then amended in September 2017, by consent, as a result of which the generic allegations then ran to 89 pages. NGN did not then take the objections to the style of the pleading that it 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN takes now in relation to the Draft GENPOC; nor, indeed, to the relevance of the matters pleaded to the determination of the individual claims, as it does now. 13. The claimants prepared and applied for permission for a re-amended version of the GENPOC in February 2020. That version was based on facts and evidence known to the claimants’ legal team up to February 2020 and it was not further amended before permission to serve it was given, again by consent, in June 2020. This version ran to 129 pages, pleaded in the same style, to which NGN then made no objection. 14. The content of the GENPOC falls into six parts: i) Summary of the claimants’ case on concealment and destruction; ii) NGN’s knowledge of the widespread and habitual use of unlawful activities; iii) NGN’s public lies and concealment of its wrongdoing; iv) NGN’s destruction and concealment of incriminating evidence; v) The knowledge or involvement of senior NGN employees; and vi) The claimants’ generic case on the issue of limitation. 15. Interestingly, para 6 of the GENPOC (which is unchanged in the Draft GENPOC) summarises the relevance of the lies, concealment and destruction that are alleged in it as follows: “6.1 As proof of NGN’s wrongdoing. The Claimants will invite the court to infer at trial that senior NGN employees took these steps to lie about, conceal or destroy evidence of these unlawful activities because they knew that they were widespread and habitual at both NGN’s newspapers during this period. There would be no other reason to do so. 6.2 As supporting inferences as to the scale and extent of these unlawful activities within NGN. In accordance with the principles set out in Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Strange 505, and in line with the judgement of Mann J in Gulati v MGN [2015] EWHC 1452 (Ch), the Claimants will refer the court to the facts that NGN deliberately destroyed or concealed evidence, as justifying the most favourable inferences being drawn as to the scope, nature and frequency of NGN’s unlawful activities, as well as the likely source of suspicious articles. 6.3 As vitiating any reliance upon a defence of limitation. The Claimants will rely upon NGN’s deliberate concealment and destruction of evidence of its wrongdoing, as rebutting any attempt to seek to defend these claims on the basis that they fall outside the statutory limitation period and should therefore be statute-barred. 6.4 As seriously aggravating the damage caused to the Claimants. The fact that these activities were not just known about or approved of by senior NGN employees, but that they also lied about or sought to conceal them, as well as 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN destroyed evidence of their existence, has greatly aggravated the injury caused to the Claimants. The same is true of the fact that as a result the Claimants have not only been deprived of the opportunity to sue at the time but have also been unable to ascertain the full extent of the unlawful activities undertaken in relation to them.” 16. I will return to those points, each of which NGN challenges, later in this judgment. It is, however, material that the claimants do not contend that these points are the only purposes that the GENPOC serves: what para 6 identifies is the purposes served by the allegations of concealment and destruction. The GENPOC also plead the scale of UIG carried out by PIs and the extent of NGN’s use and knowledge of them. 17. There is no challenge (e.g. a strike out application) to the GENPOC as it stands, only to the proposed amendments in the Draft GENPOC. It follows that whatever decision I reach on the Application, the GENPOC as it stands will be the pleaded case that is to be determined at trial, subject to any case management directions given at future CMCs or at the pre-trial review. The Draft Re-Amended GENPOC 18. The Draft GENPOC adds about 37 pages in total length to the body of the statement of case and an annexe running to a further 21 pages (“the PI Annexe”). The intended amendments are to all sections of the GENPOC, except the last (limitation). Stating how many additional pages the proposed amendments add significantly understates the complexity and scope of the new material that is added. I have no doubt that the intended trial of the material in the GENPOC would be unmanageable if all these amendments were permitted. Some of the individual amendments (of which there are 353 in total that are disputed: see [32] below) raise knotty factual issues that would take a day or more of evidence to unravel. The trial is listed for up to 8 weeks, including time for pre-reading, any reading necessary during the trial, and time for preparation of written closing submissions. That means that, in practice, about 3 weeks will be available for the trial of the generic issues. That may be insufficient for what is already pleaded, and the content of the generic trial will have to be cut down, not expanded, by case management later in the year. 19. In the part of the Draft GENPOC headed “Summary”, the amendments seek to add new steps that NGN allegedly took at the Leveson Inquiry to lie about, conceal and destroy evidence of unlawful practices, and new individuals at NGN who are alleged to have had knowledge of the unlawful practices, including, most significantly, Rupert Murdoch, Tom Mockridge (Chief Executive of News International), Piers Morgan, Phil Hall (former editor of the News of the World), Stuart Higgins and David Yelland (both former editors of The Sun). These allegations are then developed in detail in the parts that follow. 20. The PI Annexe lists, in different categories, a large number of PIs who are alleged to have acted illegally or unlawfully on behalf of journalists, editors or executives of NGN over an extended period from 1994 to 2012. Before the Draft GENPOC, there were about 20 PIs (or 25, if aliases are counted) named in para 9.3 of the GENPOC and 100 further PIs incorporated within it by reference to a schedule to a 1 November 2019 Order of the Court. NGN alleges that the Draft GENPOC seeks to introduce more than 200 new 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN journalists, executives and PIs, who were not previously identified by name, and that the PI Annexe includes over 150 PIs who were not previously pleaded in the GENPOC. The claimants counter that these numbers are significantly inflated because some PIs have aliases (or in some cases several aliases), each of which NGN has counted. 21. At all events, there is a significant number of new PIs that the claimants now seek to introduce into their pleaded case: far too many to deal with in the generic trial. It is convenient to deal with these at this stage. 22. The 4th witness statement of Claire Freeman dated 29 February 2024 analyses the list in the PI Annexe and concludes that 8 of these new PIs are not pleaded in any of the CSPoC of the remaining 42 claims; 2 are only pleaded in one remaining claim; 4 are only pleaded in two remaining claims; and 111 are only pleaded in the same three remaining claims, namely those of Christopher Jefferies, Lord Mandelson and Alan Yentob, whose CSPoC were only served as recently as 19 December 2023. 23. The reason for this last, astonishing statistic is that in the three most recent CSPoC to be drafted, the pleader has adopted the strategy of incorporating into the CSPoC the same list of PIs that otherwise appears as the PI Annexe to the Draft GENPOC. NGN points out that these claimants’ CSPoC do not make any specific allegations about the large number of PIs that are listed, except in the following paragraph: “In particular, the Claimant contends in relation to private investigators as set out in the Pleaded Private Investigator Annexe to these Particulars, including that they were responsible for carrying out inquiries on him and his Associates on the instruction of the Defendant, and that they were acting unlawfully and/or the product of their inquiries were used for unlawful purposes by the Defendant.” 24. It seems to me quite inappropriate for these claimants to make unparticularised allegations of this kind that apparently apply to each named PI on the PI Annexe. There are no particulars or explanation of how any of the named PIs is relevant to their claims. It appears therefore to be a lawyers’ device to justify including the extensive PI Annexe in the GENPOC at this stage, even though no specific allegations are made by any remaining claimant against 111 of the identified PIs. As a result of including them in the GENPOC, the claimants would then seek disclosure in relation to them: that is the means by which disclosure in relation to identifiable PIs is obtained throughout the MTVIL. 25. Without there being some credible evidence to support the allegation that 111 new PIs were responsible for carrying out UIG in relation to the three individuals, or any others, it is not appropriate to allow a late amendment of this kind to seek to bring in PIs who were not previously named in the GENPOC. In my judgment, it would not now be appropriate to introduce newly-named PIs unless either they are named in 5 or more of the remaining CSPoC or disclosure has already been given for them. 26. To allow the kind of amendment that the claimants seek would vastly increase the scope of the inquiry into PI activities required at a trial, for which there is no additional time in the January 2025 listing. In any event, it could not be done without disclosure in relation to them. Mr Galbraith produced in his 39th witness statement a different table based on the PI Annexe, which shows for which PIs disclosure has already been given and those PIs who are already named in the GENPOC. Those for whom disclosure has not been 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN given and who are not already the subject of pleaded allegations (in 5 or more CSPoCs or in the GENPOC, not in witness statements, exhibits or documents within the electronic bundle files) will not be introduced at this late stage. 27. Putting to one side the PI Annexe, the claimants advance their Application generally on the basis that the wished-for amendments to the GENPOC do three things: i) ii) advance the generic case taking account of documents that have been newly disclosed by NGN, or information otherwise obtained, since 19 February 2020, when the GENPOC was drafted; give particulars of the names of those (whether executives, editors, journalists or PIs) in relation to whose conduct the claimants will seek to have findings made at trial, and of the allegations that are made against them; iii) plead new matters that the claimants have only been in a position to plead more recently in support of the case of concealment and destruction, as a result of “more pieces of the jigsaw” having been inserted and their significance having been fully assessed. 28. Mr Sherborne took me through each of the disputed amendments (very few are agreed by NGN), save for those in para 19 of the Draft GENPOC, and explained why he said that each fell into one or other of these categories. In some cases, it is easy to see that a particular amendment is the product of documents recently disclosed; in other cases, much less so. 29. Ms Freeman annexed to her 4th witness statement dated 29 February 2024 a table running to 124 pages, with 353 rows and 3 columns, one row for each of the amendments in the Draft GENPOC to which NGN objects (in most cases on several different grounds). The size of this table is indicative of the sheer volume of the amendments that the claimants seek to introduce at a late stage. In the third column is a reference to the documents on which the allegation is based, according to Mr Galbraith’s evidence, and the date of each document and when it was available to the claimants’ legal team. Mr Hudson added, in a separate version of the table, a statement of each of the grounds on which NGN objected to each amendment. 30. In schedule 2 to his skeleton argument, Mr Sherborne produced a further version of this table, which highlights those documents identified by NGN that postdate February 2020, and in a further column states which of the 3 categories described in [27] above applies to each of the amendments. These are all incorporated into the Schedule to this judgment – I am grateful to the parties for assisting in the preparation of the template into which I inserted my decision on each amendment. 31. Ms Freeman’s 4th witness statement sets out her analysis of her table, which she says shows that 32% of the documents underlying the amendments pre-date the end of 2012 and were available to the claimants’ legal team then, as being publicly available or as having been provided to them; another 5% in the period 2013-2016; and another 42% in the period 2017-2020. That means that, according to her analysis, only 21% of the identified documents postdate the GENPOC (though she has taken the date on which the GENPOC was served, not the date of the draft). She contends that only 1% of the documents in question were provided in disclosure from 2023 onwards. However, Mr 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Sherborne pointed out that this is misleading because large volumes of call data recently disclosed are counted as one document for this purpose: that became apparent when Mr Hudson KC said that there were only 6 documents in total that date from 2023, despite the disclosure of large volumes of call data in November and December 2023. 32. In any event, what is more significant, in my view, is to see which of the amendments is based, at least in significant part, on a document or evidence obtained since February 2020, and in those cases for how long the claimants have had the document in question. Mr Sherborne pointed out that 178 rows out of the 354 in the table include reference to documents that postdate February 2020. So it can be seen that almost exactly half of the amendments claim to be significantly based on material disclosed since the date of the GENPOC (though in many cases they are also based on earlier documents). Equally, however, one half of the amendments are based on documents that were available to the legal team before the GENPOC were drafted, which necessarily raises questions about why they need to be made now. 33. As for the second aim, viz naming those against whom allegations are to be made at trial, that is of course a necessary condition for seeking any finding of serious misconduct against an individual, but it is not a sufficient reason for permitting a late amendment. 34. As for the third aim, it may well be true, given the piecemeal way in which the claimants’ generic case has evolved over time, that with more material disclosed more connections can be made, and that as a result a bigger picture can be seen. The claimants’ legal team assert that this is so, but it is inherently subjective, in most cases, and it is very difficult for the court to assess the accuracy of Mr Galbraith’s explanation in his 39th witness statement. In any event, it is not a sufficient basis for a late amendment but just an explanation of why the amendment is being brought forward at this stage. 35. The claimants argue that they should be given permission to amend in all cases. They say that, with the exception of the extension of the period during which there was, allegedly, habitual and extensive wrongdoing by NGN, the amendments will not give rise to applications for further disclosure, but rather are based on the generic disclosure or claimant-specific disclosure that has already been given. I have real doubts about this: Mr Galbraith’s table indicates that where, in relation to a given PI in the PI Annexe, “NO” is stated in the disclosure column, this means that the PI is “pleaded only for disclosure”. There are other indications in the Draft GENPOC that the claimants’ pleaded case is a provisional one “pending disclosure”. 36. Nevertheless, the claimants argue that there is no significant prejudice to NGN in preparing to deal with the new allegations at trial, but that there would be significant prejudice to the claimants in not being able to advance their up-to-date generic case. They say, accordingly, that the balancing exercise inherent in CPR Part 17.3 where a late application to amend is made comes down in their favour (the claimants accept that this is a “late” amendment). 37. The claimants contend that NGN’s argument that they could not be ready for a January 2025 trial if all the amendments are permitted is no more than “reverse engineering”, creating timescales working back from the trial date to assert that there is insufficient time to do what is needed, namely investigate and plead in response, deal with further disclosure and prepare further generic witness statements, in addition to the claimant- specific disclosure and witness statements. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN 38. The amendments sought by the claimants seem to me to be a mix of the following types. First, allegations that only add detail to allegations that are already pleaded, or a further example of such allegations. I am disposed towards allowing such amendments, if they are proportionate. Second, allegations that draw newly-named individuals into the existing pleaded allegations. These need to be justified as late amendments, but in some cases it is just providing a list of names to go with allegations that have already been pleaded, in which case it is somewhat artificial not to allow the amendment. Third, new allegations against those who are already named in the GENPOC. This may be acceptable as long as completely new issues are not being opened up and the additional matter is proportionate. Fourth, entirely new allegations against new employees or executives of NGN. I am unlikely to grant permission for these at a late stage. Fifth, allegations (mainly unparticularised) against new PIs. I have already indicated that these will not be allowed save in certain categories. In addition, there are the amendments to extend the period covered by the allegations (from 1996 back to 1994 and from 2011 to 2012). 39. In some respects, as Mr Sherborne submitted, the generic amendments that are sought to be made are for allegations that are already made in some CSPoCs. That raises the question of whether they are appropriate generic issues or just issues in a limited number of individual claims that should be treated as such. As I have indicated, in some cases it is clear that the way in which the allegations have been pleaded in CSPoCs is inappropriate. NGN’s Objections 40. Mr Hudson KC on behalf of NGN approached the Application in a very different way from Mr Sherborne. He argued a number of fundamental objections in principle to the claimants being permitted to amend in terms of the Draft GENPOC at this stage. These, he said, individually or together, made it clear that permission should not be granted. He did not seek to address each separate amendment orally, in the way that Mr Sherborne did, but explained and developed NGN’s objections in principle, and then (in writing only, in the form of his amended table) stated which objections applied to each of the 353 amendments. (1) Style of pleading 41. The first of the objections (not in order of importance) was to the style of the pleading of the amendments in the Draft GENPOC, which Mr Hudson said compounded the highly unsatisfactory style of the GENPOC. This, he explained, is contrary to the requirements of CPR Part 16.4(1)(a), paragraph 8.2 of 16PD and paragraph 4.2 the Chancery Guide, in that the drafting is prolix, not concise, in the form of lengthy paragraphs, and comprises mainly the pleading of evidence and the basis on which inferences should be drawn, rather than simply the facts that will be proved by evidence at trial. In other respects (e.g. para 11.37A Draft GENPOC), the objection was to pleaded allegations, including allegations of dishonesty, without the required level of particularity of the allegation that was being made. In relation to dishonesty, para 4.8 of the Chancery Guide spells out exactly the level of particularity required, as regards the state of knowledge of the person alleged to have been dishonest. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN 42. Mr Hudson referred to the points of principle explained by Briggs and Christopher Clarke LJJ in Hague Plant Ltd v Hague [2014] EWCA Civ 1609; [2015] CP Rep 14, distinguishing a concise statement of facts from a “rambling narrative” and evidence to be relied on at trial, and the danger of a party’s case being obscured by a pleading of “interminable length and diffuseness and conspicuous lack of precision”, and by Warby LJ in Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 1058 (Ch); [2020] EMLR 21 at [51] on the proportionality requirements of a statement of case: “…The overriding objective of deciding cases justly and at proportionate cost requires the court to monitor and control the scale of the resource it devotes to each individual claim. Irrelevant matter should, as a rule, have no place in particulars of claim. There may be cases where the court would allow the inclusion of some minor matters that are, on a strict view, immaterial. But where the irrelevant pleading makes serious allegations of wrongdoing which are partly implicit, unclear, lacking in the essential particulars, and likely to cause a significant increase in cost and complexity, the case for striking out is all the clearer.” Mr Hudson says that exactly these criticisms apply to the GENPOC and the Draft GENPOC. 43. I agree with Mr Hudson that the pleading style of the Draft GENPOC leaves much to be desired. However, there is no application to strike out the GENPOC on this ground. The Draft GENPOC is a continuation of the existing style of the GENPOC. NGN is in my view disabled from complaining with any conviction about the style of the amendments because it consented to the amended GENPOC in 2017 and the re-amended GENPOC in 2020, all of which are in the same style and contain the same pleading deficiencies. 44. Further, the problem in dealing with the GENPOC will not go away if I refuse permission to amend. Nor, in my judgment, will it get materially worse, except incrementally with the increased quantity of pages, if I grant permission, because the amendments fit into and perpetuate the same structure and style of the generic allegations that already exist. If I were to refuse permission to appeal on the basis that only material facts should be succinctly pleaded, with particulars of each allegation in a schedule and no evidence, and the claimants then produced a different version of the amendments in a different style, the result might be greater confusion at trial. I will not therefore, despite the shortcomings, refuse permission to amend because of the style of the draft amendments as a whole; but where it is clear that what is pleaded is only argument, or evidence in support of an already pleaded case, I will disallow it. (2) Are the amendments pointless or irrelevant? 45. Another objection that NGN raised was that the GENPOC did not serve any useful purpose and so should not be expanded. Mr Hudson argued that the GENPOC are incapable of achieving the four purposes stated in their paragraph 6, quoted in [15] above, and that therefore amendments to add further material of the same kind should be refused. 46. Mr Hudson submits, first, that the argument that concealment and destruction proves wrongdoing is a self-serving “bootstraps” argument. I agree that if there were no evidence 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN of wrongdoing other than the concealment and destruction alleged, those facts would not be logically probative. There would need to be some evidence of what was concealed and that what was destroyed related to that. But where the nature of the wrongdoing can be established by other evidence, which the claimants arguably have (NGN does not seek to oppose any amendment on the ground that it has no real prospect of success), proof of deliberate concealment of the wrongdoing and the destruction of large quantities of relevant material is capable of being logically probative of the scale, nature and extent of the wrongdoing. This is an important aspect of the generic case, on which individual claimants in turn rely for an inference that their private information was obtained by unlawful means, even if they have no direct proof of that (because of concealment and destruction). It includes alleged concealment that took place before May 2011, during the time at which the articles about which most claimants complain were written. 47. Second, Mr Hudson argues that inferences of an Armory v Delamirie nature cannot operate at a generic level and that its proper scope of application is much narrower, and must be claimant specific. It is clear that such an inference may arise where a party has destroyed (and thereby prevented the court from seeing) an article or document that is germane to the issue in dispute. In Duke of Sussex v MGN Ltd [2023] EWHC 3179 (Ch), I decided that the claimants in that case could not rely on the principle to justify a finding that schedules of work done by a PI that had been destroyed included work done in relation to particular claimants on particular dates, but did give rise to an inference that whatever the PI was doing was of an unlawful character. So that was an inference of a generic and non-claimant specific nature. There is no doubt that the deliberate destruction of potential evidence of wrongdoing can give rise to an inferential conclusion against the destroyer: the issue is what inference can and should be drawn in all the circumstances. 48. Although in many instances it will be the inference that will be drawn in relation to wrongs alleged by a particular claimant that is important, I am unable to see why an inference under Armory v Delamirie cannot arise in relation to a generic issue, such as the extent of wrongdoing, whether a particular PI was acting exclusively or mainly illegally or unlawfully, or whether a particular executive of NGN knew about and condoned illegal activity. Just to take one example which arises in this litigation, the claimants allege that Rebekah Brooks’s laptop hard drive was removed and destroyed, and another laptop hidden, to conceal the fact that she knew about illegal or unlawful activities of employees of NGN and retained PIs and was complicit in the destruction of millions of emails in early 2011. If there is evidence of such wrongdoing by NGN and the claimants prove that the hard drive was indeed deliberately removed and destroyed, it is possible (I deliberately say no more and need to say no more at this time) that inferences may properly be drawn, in the light of all the evidence, about Ms Brooks’s knowledge of the destruction, her knowledge as Chief Executive of NGN/News International of the wrongdoing by NGN journalists and/or that the wrongdoing was extensive and/or institutionalised at NGN’s newspapers. This is but one example of how such inferences may arise and may be drawn at a generic rather than a claimant-specific level. Whether it is right to draw such an inference is of course a matter for trial, depending on how the evidence emerges. Mr Hudson is therefore wrong, in my view, to say that Armory v Delamirie cannot operate in the context of generic issues. 49. Third, Mr Hudson said that the generic case in the GENPOC has very limited, if any, relevance to the limitation issue, which is necessarily claimant specific. This is, he said, because the critical issue at trial will be whether each individual claimant knew, or could 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN with reasonable diligence have known, more than 6 years before issuing their claim form that they had a worthwhile claim to pursue against NGN for misuse of private information or breach of confidence. (Mr Hudson also pointed out that there are no amendments of substance to the limitation section of the GENPOC, which suggests that the limitation case cannot be a reason for the Draft GENPOC.) 50. I agree that the limitation issue, turning on the application of s.32 Limitation Act 1980, will ultimately be claimant-specific, though not limited to a subjective assessment of what that person knew or was aware of. But the extent of concealment by NGN, as alleged by the claimants, is part of the picture. From the time of the Leveson Inquiry onwards, NGN has issued strenuous denials (and gave sworn evidence to the Inquiry) that no phone hacking or similarly illegal or unlawful UIG was carried on at The Sun, unlike the News of the World. What was said at various times, and the extent to which it was misleading and liable to mislead a reasonable putative claimant, is important background. I agree with Mr Hudson that it is the bigger picture on concealment (starting with concealment of the information gathering activities themselves) which is likely to matter in the final, claimant-specific analysis, but it cannot be said that the nature and extent of concealment and lies by NGN, as are alleged, is irrelevant to the process of making findings about what each claimant actually knew, by six years before issue, or what a reasonable person in their shoes could reasonably have known at that time. 51. It is important in this regard to stress that, although in seeking to persuade me to direct preliminary issues on limitation NGN was willing to have those issued tried on the assumption that what was alleged by the relevant claimants about concealment was true, NGN makes no such concession for the purposes of the full trial that will take place in January 2025. The allegations of phone hacking and any UIG are not admitted, and so the alleged concealment by covert operations at the time is similarly not admitted. The allegations of further concealment, destruction and lies are all in issue at the trial and are relevant to the limitation defence for the reasons that I have given. 52. Fourth, Mr Hudson argued that the claim for aggravated damages cannot justify the very extensive treatment of the alleged knowledge and approval of senior editorial staff and NGN executives in the GENPOC. Many of the amendments in the Draft GENPOC relate to this issue. Mr Hudson submitted that aggravated damages is a claimant-specific issue, which depends on the extent to which each individual claimant was caused further distress or outrage by the belief or knowledge that what they suffered was caused by the actions of editors and executives, rather than just “rogue” journalists. Again, I agree that it is ultimately an issue that is claimant-specific, but the underlay is entirely generic. No claimant can obtain aggravated damages on the basis asserted without establishing, first, that senior editorial staff and/or executives of NGN or News International knew about and/or condoned the illegal or unlawful actions of its journalists. The extent of that alleged wrongdoing is an important generic issue. 53. However, it is an issue that must be addressed proportionately. In Duke of Sussex v MGN Ltd, I found that the illegal and unlawful conduct of journalists at MGN’s newspapers had been conducted for years to the knowledge of editors, the legal department and two main board directors. I awarded aggravated damages to those claimants who suffered distress from the wrongful conduct after the time at which the board should reasonably have stopped it. The aggravated damages added only about 10% to the successful claimants’ damages. The issue is therefore not likely to be worth a great deal of money. It is, in reality, mainly a “trophy” issue for those who are running the MTVIL on behalf 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN of the individual claimants, and also, perhaps, for a few of the individual claimants themselves. There are already lengthy allegations in the GENPOC about what editors and executives of NGN knew at various times (Mr Hudson said that there are 39 pages of examples). It is therefore unlikely to be proportionate to add further allegations about relatively unimportant further individuals, particularly if the person in question has not previously been named in the GENPOC. 54. Providing further particulars of matters that are already pleaded, however, even if it involves adding additional names, is not open to the same objection. So, for example, where on the basis of disclosure (e.g. payment records or call data) the claimants are now able to allege that other journalists were also instructing PIs to carry out UIG, it would be wrong to exclude those allegations, which are essentially advanced on the basis of documentary evidence and inferences to be drawn. 55. Mr Hudson’s objections on the ground of pointlessness do not in any event address the other purpose served by the GENPOC, which is to plead the extent of the wrongdoing of different kinds and what is relied on to justify a conclusion that it was “extensive and habitual” at both newspapers during the period 1998-2011. As I have said, that is an important foundation for the question of what conclusions and inferences should be drawn in relation to articles complained about by individual claimants. Further amendments to advance the generic case about use of certain PIs and the number of employees allegedly hacking mobile phones and landlines are obviously relevant and material, though particular amendments of this kind may be objectionable for other reasons. 56. The next point that NGN makes is that the amendments in the Draft GENPOC are unnecessary because they add nothing to any of the claims made by the remaining claimants, and so are otiose. They point out that nowhere in their submissions have the claimants identified how any of the proposed amendments benefit a particular claimant, or claimants, in terms of their getting a fair trial of their claims in January 2025. This alludes to a point previously made by Mann J as long ago as 2019 in relation to generic disclosure: the claimants cannot reasonably expect to keep putting more and more bricks in the generic wall if they already have enough for there to be a fair trial of their claimant- specific allegations. 57. 1. In my view, NGN has a strong case for saying that heaping up more and more allegations about particular occasions on which (unknown to any of the claimants and unseen by the public) NGN executives were concealing what had happened will add nothing to the issue of limitation at trial, or to the case for aggravated damages on account of executive knowledge and direction of wrongdoing and its concealment. What will matter is the fact of initial concealment by using covert means, and of continued concealment by public denials (e.g., at the Leveson Inquiry or in Parliament) and preventing what is alleged to be the unsavoury truth from emerging in public. I am therefore sympathetic to NGN’s argument that enough is enough in terms of allegations such as concealment from the MPS and others where there was no public dimension. The same argument does not however apply with anything like the same force to allegations about the extent and character of the wrongdoing, on the basis of which individual claimants will invite the court to draw inferences about the source of their private and confidential information. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN (3) Delay and prejudice caused by delay 58. The true focus of NGN’s objection to the proposed amendments seemed to me to be that the Application is far too late and the amendments far too expansive, and that as a result there will be considerable prejudice to NGN in having to deal with them at a late stage. Accordingly, it cannot be just and in accordance with the overriding objective to grant permission for the amendments. NGN went as far as to say that the proposed amendments imperil the trial date of 15 January 2025, and as such should be treated as a “very late” amendment, with a commensurately greater burden on the claimants to justify any of them. 59. I have explained at [59]-[73] of my judgment in Duke of Sussex v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2024] EWHC 1208 (Ch), which I have also handed down today, the legal principles that are applicable on an application to amend. I adopt that summary here. 60. Ms Freeman’s evidence was that the Draft GENPOC introduces allegations against 62 new employees of NGN and over 150 new PIs. She says that 80% of the 62 employees are no longer employed by NGN and two are deceased. Mr Galbraith’s response, in his 40th witness statement dated 7 March 2024, is that over one half of the 150+ new PI names are aliases, so that the true number of new PIs is in fact many fewer, and that almost all the employees (save for those who relate entirely or almost entirely to the years 1994 and 1995) have been named in CSPoCs. 61. There are amendments to add allegations in the years 1994, 1995 and 2012, and acts alleged to have taken place in ten foreign countries. The addition of 1994 and 1995 within the scope of the general UIG allegations requires investigation into matters that are now about 30 years old, and there will be questions about whether what was done by PIs or journalists in foreign jurisdictions was unlawful there. 62. Ms Freeman says that it will take NGN and its lawyers 12 weeks to investigate the new allegations fully and prepare a re-re-amended Defence to the GENPOC. She accordingly estimated that, if this judgment were to be handed down on 12 April 2024, proportionate search terms for disclosure could be agreed by 9 August 2024 and disclosure be given 8 weeks later, by 4 November 2024. She gives reasons why review and extraction of data and completion of the disclosure searches, with an element of re-running searches over uploaded data that has already been searched, will take that long. That date is only a few days before the date for exchange of generic witness statements. 63. In fact, as will be apparent, Ms Freeman’s working assumption as to when judgment might be handed down was far too optimistic, given the volume and complexity of the amendments in the Draft GENPOC and the need to deal at the same time with the application of the Duke of Sussex to amend his CSPoC. That means that, on Ms Freeman’s timeline, if the re-re-amended GENPOC were to be served by 24 May 2024, NGN’s re-re-amended Defence would be expected by 9 August 2024, search terms by 21 September 2024 and disclosure by 15 November 2024. That is obviously too late, as generic witness statements are due on 7 November 2024. 64. Mr Galbraith’s response to this evidence is to say that they are bare assertions and that no evidence has been provided about the time required to amend the Defence, nor as to the likely extent of any resulting disclosure exercise. As to that, Mr Sherborne said that 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN further disclosure was only anticipated in relation to the additional years to which the generic claim is extended; but that cannot be right because Mr Galbraith explains that in relation to most of the new PIs disclosure has not yet been obtained because they have not previously been pleaded. There are other instances in the Draft GENPOC where the need for further disclosure is trailed by words such as “Subject to further disclosure ….”. Mr Galbraith says in his 40th witness statement that “a number of the proposed amendments to the pleadings do not require further disclosure”, and that “the scope of the resulting disclosure will depend on the pleaded Defence” and so it is “premature” to guess the scope of the resulting disclosure. 65. The only safe conclusion to draw from this is that there is likely to be more disclosure required fairly to try some of the amendments, not just limited to the intended extension of the period of alleged wrongdoing to include the years 1994, 1995 and 2012. 66. Despite this, Mr Galbraith asserts, first, that NGN was overstating the risk to the trial date, on the basis that NGN has had the Draft GENPOC since 23 January 2024 and can be expected to have set to work already; second, that disclosure will not be required if NGN makes admissions to new allegations; third, that search terms and date ranges should be “relatively easy to establish”; and fourth, that the court can always control the amount of disclosure permitted, if a dispute arises. 67. I consider that Ms Freeman may be somewhat pessimistic in saying that a full 12 weeks will be needed to investigate and plead to the amended case, and that 8 weeks may well be sufficient and that 10 weeks will very likely be sufficient. NGN has a long history in the MTVIL of “not admitting” allegations, rather than admitting them or denying them with particularity, and it is reasonable to assume that that approach will not fundamentally change. To be fair to NGN, though, that does not obviate the need to investigate wholly new allegations before trial, and this pleading does come at a late stage such that NGN may well now need to investigate more fully than it might have done at the start of the claim. 68. I consider that 4 weeks for agreeing search terms is a reasonable estimate – if anything, given the history of disputes in the MTVIL about such matters, on the low side – and that (subject to uncertainty until pleadings have closed about what disclosure is required) 8 weeks to effect the further disclosure is not an unreasonable estimate. I have no basis on which to reject Ms Freeman’s evidence. 69. That means that to grant the Application in full may well result in the trial date having to be vacated, or if not then serious prejudice to NGN in having its time for orderly preparation for the trial unreasonably compressed. That in turn means that the amendments, as sought, are on the cusp of being “very late” amendments, for which the claimants can be expected to provide a cogent explanation for the delay in making the Application, and otherwise to bear a heavy burden of persuasion that the balance of prejudice is in favour of allowing all the amendments. 70. 1. It is unthinkable that the trial date should be allowed to be vacated. I have recently rejected an application by NGN for a preliminary issue on limitation for that among other reasons. The claimants have been waiting since 2019 in the case of the Duke of Sussex (though he could have had an earlier trial if he had been ready for it), and 2022 in the case of the other 41 claimants, for their claims to be tried. The allegations relate to the period from 1993 (in one case) to 2012 and raise factual issues that are historic. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN 71. The claims are on any view stale, whether statute-barred or not, and must be decided as soon as reasonably possible. Not every claim can be tried in January 2025. Many may settle before then. Some claimants have such a large number of articles complained about that only a selection can be tried in any event. But the strong expectation is that, for those claims and for any others that have not been settled by January 2025 but cannot be tried then, the judgment on the trial claims will enable all other claims to be resolved by agreement. 72. Delay in making the Application is accordingly a real problem for the claimants. The trial scheduled for November 2021 did not take place because all the trial eligible claims settled at a late stage. On 25 March 2022, I dismissed NGN’s application for the MTVIL to close to new claims, and I directed a cut-off date of 30 September 2022 for fourth tranche claims to be issued. All claims in the fourth tranche had therefore been issued by that date and would progress towards a trial. The trial dates of January 2024 and January 2025 were fixed on 7 November 2022. My Order dated 31 July 2023 identified 50 claims for the 2024 trial and directed that pleadings were to be completed and search terms agreed in respect of the other 59 claims that were destined for the 2025 trial. It then stayed those claims from the date when those steps were achieved until the expected end of the 2024 trial. In the event, the stay was lifted early on 5 December 2023, following the settlement of the 2024 trial eligible claims. 73. No indication was given prior to 28 November 2023 of an intention further to amend the GENPOC. There was no application between 7 November 2022 and the date of the intended pre-trial review for the 2024 trial, and therefore, by inference, there was considered to be no need for the GENPOC to be amended for those claims to be fairly tried in January 2024. The claimants’ justification for the Draft GENPOC is that the claim has not been updated to take account of disclosure given (both generic and claimant-specific) since February 2020 and other evidence or information obtained since then, and that other pieces of the jigsaw have become apparent in that time. That is understandable, and I accept Mr Sherborne’s argument that, at least in part, this is what the Draft GENPOC are seeking to do. But that does not explain why the Application was not made in good time for the 2024 trial. There was no draft ready for it and the process of preparing the Draft GENPOC took from 5 December 2023 (when directions were given for provision of a draft by 9 January 2024) until 17 January 2024. 74. Mr Hudson said that, to the extent that the material for the Draft GENPOC was available to the claimants before November 2024, when the 2024 trial eligible claims settled, the failure to apply to amend before they settled is fatal to the Application, because it demonstrates that the amendments were not considered necessary for a fair trial to take place. I do not feel able to go that far, but the delay does lead to the inference that, apart from disclosure obtained in November and December 2023 pursuant to my Order dated 10 October 2023, the proposed amendments were not considered by the 2024 trial eligible claimants (who have the same legal team as the current claimants) to be a necessary part of their cases. Nothing was said to explain why the perception of the 2025 trial eligible claimants should be different. The call data disclosure provided by NGN in November and December 2023 is, however, relied on as being important evidence, and is the origin of some of the proposed amendments, which in my view are justified for that reason. So too are amendments to plead earlier facts that are cast in a new light by recent disclosure. 75. Subject to points such as these, the delay in providing the Draft GENPOC, in particular the failure to amend before the 2024 trial, has not been explained, save that Mr Sherborne 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN said that it would not have been in accordance with the policy previously approved by Mann J, namely that amendments to the GENPOC should not be made on a piecemeal basis but should be collected together and applied for in one go. That may be so, but the policy did not require the claimants to abjure the opportunity to bring their re-re-amended claim to trial in 2024 or delay until 23 January 2024 to make the Application. Mr Sherborne did not refer to the observations also made by Mann J from time to time that the GENPOC cannot become an endless process of further embellishing the generic case, generating more and more requirements for disclosure, and that there has to come a point where enough is pleaded and disclosed for a fair trial to take place. 76. In view of these observations, I am disposed to take a restrictive approach to allowing the proposed amendments, on grounds of delay and because permitting all the amendments will either prejudice the trial date or at least create an unlevel playing field on which NGN is running uphill to be ready for the full trial. The claimants have sought to introduce a vast quantity of new allegations and material, much of which is likely to be highly contentious, and there is no prospect of the time listed for trial accommodating these allegations. By taking that restrictive approach, I will obviate any risk to the trial date and reduce any real prejudice to NGN resulting from the lateness of the amendments. The amendments permitted will be proportionate to the real issues that are raised by the majority of the claimants. Issues that only affect a few claimants should be treated as claimant-specific and not pleaded in the GENPOC. (4) Other unjustifiable amendments 77. Mr Hudson argued that the claimants, or rather those who are running the MTVIL on their behalf, have seized the opportunity afforded by the vacation of the 2024 trial and the delay until January 2025 to add substantial new allegations to the GENPOC to expand the narrative of broad allegations against NGN. The allegations of this type are, he said, irrelevant to the claims of the claimants, and so should not be permitted for that reason. 78. My impression, from having case managed the MTVIL and the parallel MGN Ltd litigation (“the MNHL”) since 2021, is that those who are pursuing the litigation most avidly on the claimants’ side cannot resist adding more and more detail to the claim, as more and more missing pieces of the jigsaw are found, with a view to having the fullest possible picture to put before the court and be the subject of journalists’ reports and judicial findings. That is in a sense understandable, as the psychology of investigative journalists or those who love jigsaw puzzles; but the question for the court is a different one: what is needed for a fair trial of the individual claims to take place? 79. I also consider that there is a desire on the part of those running the litigation on the claimants’ side to shoot at “trophy” targets, whether those are political issues or high- profile individuals. This cannot become an end in itself: it only matters to the court so far as it is material and proportionate to the resolution of the individual causes of action. The trial is not an inquiry. 80. NGN also submitted that some of the amendments are made for collateral reasons, namely to give publicity to serious allegations against senior NGN executives, which is said to be furthering the political agenda of a group of journalists and others who are pushing this litigation forwards. This point was made particularly with regard to: 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN a) b) c) the allegations belatedly made directly against Rupert Murdoch personally, where none was previously so made; a new section in the Draft GENPOC alleging unlawful activity intended to further the commercial or political aims of News Corporation or News International (the parent companies of NGN, controlled by Mr Murdoch), which focuses on allegations that Lord Watson, Sir Vince Cable, Sir Norman Lamb, Mr Huhne and Dr Harris were targeted when Members of Parliament; a new section alleging that a Management and Standards Committee (“the MSC”), established by Mr Murdoch by about June 2011, was aware of and concealed destruction of evidence of wrongdoing; deliberately failed to cooperate with the MPS in the investigation of wrongdoing at NGN, to the knowledge of Mr Murdoch and other senior executives including Mr Greenberg and Mr Lewis (who are already named in the GENPOC in relation to allegations of destruction of evidence of wrongdoing); and continued the practice of buying the silence of those ex-employees who knew about senior executives’ involvement in and their knowledge of VMI. 81. The allegations of targeting members of the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport are made only in the CSPoC of Lord Watson; the allegations of targeting Vince Cable MP and Norman Lamb MP are made only in their CSPoCs; and the allegations of targeting Mr Huhne and Dr Harris are not made in any claimant’s CSPoC. Dr Harris is one of those alleged by NGN to be part of the inner group running the claimants’ case in the MTVIL. It is difficult to see why any of these should be generic issues at this late stage. 82. Further, new allegations are introduced in the draft GENPOC alleging that, from the outset, News International and NGN did not cooperate with the MPS investigation into the activities of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire. These include allegations of certain individuals knowingly deceiving the MPS and CPS in relation to the sentencing of those two offenders. These have every appearance of being collateral issues that do not further the generic case of concealment beyond what is already pleaded, and they do not impact directly on the claim of any individual claimant. The allegations are no doubt of great interest to the likes of Mr Graham Johnson (who was present at the hearings) and fellow journalists who are looking for a good storyline to publish, but they do not in my judgement add anything to the weight of evidence that is relevant to the allegations in the remaining claims. That is necessarily also the case in relation to allegations relating to Mr Huhne and Dr Harris, who are not claimants. 83. As for the issues relating to Lord Watson, Sir Vince Cable and Sir Norman Lamb, these are not generic issues but claimant-specific issues, since they relate to special experiences of those politicians and a particular alleged motive of NGN, which is not material to other claimants. 84. As for the allegations now made against Mr Rupert Murdoch, I cannot see what difference is made to the allegations of habitual and extensive UIG, knowledge on the part of senior executives, and concealment and destruction, by trying to pin actual knowledge on him personally. There are already allegations pleaded against Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch, who are his trusted lieutenants in relation to News Corporation and NGN and who are very senior executives in their own right. Allegations 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN against others, such as Mr Greenberg and Mr Lewis, who are senior executives and were appointed by and close to Mr Murdoch, are also in the GENPOC already. Tempting though it no doubt is for the claimants’ team to attempt to inculpate the man at the very top, doing so will add nothing to a finding that Ms Brooks and Mr James Murdoch or other senior executives knew and were involved, if that is proved to be the case. The same goes for the belated attempt to bring Mr Frederick Michel into the picture by making allegations against him specifically. 85. As for the MSC, allegations are already made about Mr Greenberg and Mr Lewis, who were key figures on the MSC. What is proposed to be added is the suggestion that that body as a whole (which was appointed specifically by Mr Murdoch) knew about all the wrongdoing, and allegations of deliberately not cooperating with the MPS and buying the silence of ex-employees. In my judgment, these allegations, involving focus on the activities of the MSC, will be merely a (potentially lengthy and incendiary) distraction from the allegations that are already pleaded, which already include (at para 5.5 GENPOC) allegations of buying silence. They add nothing of significance to the claimants’ claims, but would clearly require extensive disclosure, if permitted. 86. Accordingly, I will not give permission to amend to plead any of these amendments. (5) Issues that are not properly generic issues 87. I do not consider that it is appropriate to grant permission to amend to plead in the GENPOC matters that are only raised in a few of the remaining claims and that do not apply to others. These are not properly to be regarded as generic issues, in the sense of issues that are relevant to all of the claims (which is what the GENPOC is supposed to be addressing, though the claimants appear increasingly to treat it as a compilation of all allegations of wrongdoing against NGN). There are 42 remaining claims, so the allegations relating to events in 1993 that only arise in one claim, in 1994 that only arise in two claims (in one of which there is only one article in that year), and in 1995 that only arise in 5 claims, one of which has now settled, do not justify extending the period covered by the generic claim. The same is true in relation to the year 2012, where there are only 2 claimants who make an allegation in relation to that year. This does not preclude those individual claimants who have already pleaded claims in those years from pursuing them, as claimant-specific disclosure has already taken place in most of the claims and will shortly take place in others. 88. I rejected the amendments in respect of PIs that are only pleaded in one, two or three claims for the same reason: see [25] above. 89. As for the 8 PIs whose names appear on the PI Annexe but do not appear in any remaining CSPoC, this might therefore be considered a generic rather than a claimant-specific issue, but it is wholly disproportionate to attempt to include within the generic claim unparticularised allegations against 8 more PIs against whom no allegations are made by any remaining claimant. The inference is that it is done simply in order to generate a request for further disclosure, with a view to providing new pieces for the jigsaw. It is too late for any such exercise to be undertaken, and it appears entirely unnecessary for any claimant to have these further potential pieces in order for their allegations to be fairly determined. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN (6) Limitation 90. Another objection that NGN raised was that the amendments add new causes of action, by (i) adding new individuals as the subject of allegations, (ii) adding new allegations against NGN, and (iii) by extending the period covered by the existing allegations to include 1994-1996 and 2012-2016. 91. In relation to categories (i) and (ii), this is a misunderstanding of the way that the GENPOC operate as a generic pleading. The only causes of action and relief claimed are pleaded in the CSPoC of the individual claimants. The GENPOC are a convenient means of pleading, in a single document, various factual allegations made by all claimants relating to the extent of illegal and unlawful activity generally and the concealment of wrongdoing and destruction of evidence generally. The GENPOC do not amount to causes of action, as NGN otherwise recognises in its skeleton argument (“It is an unusual statement of case in that it discloses no cause of action upon which the Court is asked to adjudicate” (para 5); “…the C&D pleadings do not set out any causes of action” (para 146)). 92. Although each claimant adopts the GENPOC in their CSPoC, the only causes of action pleaded are those set out in the CSPoC, where the claimant claims that their private or confidential information was misused and appropriate remedies are sought. The matter can be tested in this way. If a claimant were to amend their CSPoC by deleting all the causes of action pleaded there, leaving only the sentence incorporating the GENPOC by reference to it, there would no longer be a valid claim, because there would be no claim that that claimant’s private information had been misused. The GENPOC are factual allegations of general matters that are intended to support the facts alleged in the CSPoC and the inferences sought to be drawn. 93. Further, the causes of action in the CSPoC are pleaded compendiously rather than individually (see my analysis in Sanderson v MGN Ltd [2022] EWHC 1222 (Ch) and Grant v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2023] EWHC 1273 (Ch)) and so adding further specific allegations of the same genus (e.g. occasions of blagging of private information), or allegations that the matters alleged were also done by other employees of NGN, would not amount to a new claim even if pleaded in the CSPoC. 94. Alleging a different category of wrongdoing (e.g., landline call interception), or UIG at an earlier or later time than the period of wrongdoing pleaded, would amount to a new claim, but only if the claimant is making a personal claim for relief in relation to it. 95. It follows that I do not consider that the category (iii) amendments in the GENPOC necessarily amount to a new claim either. They would do so if an individual claimant was claiming a remedy in relation to wrongs done to them during the new period, though that would have to be pleaded in the CSPoC (in some cases it already is). 96. The fact that such amendments are not objectionable on limitation grounds does not however mean that there are no other objections to extending the period of the allegations in the GENPOC, as I have indicated above. I will refuse permission to extend the generic claim to 1994, 1995 and 2012 on the basis that there are only very few claimant-specific allegations relating to these years, that to extend the generic case in that way is 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN disproportionate and, given the requirement for extensive disclosure to which it would give rise, that it is too prejudicially late. (7) Disproportionality of amendments 97. This basis of objection is closely related to the objections that the amendments are otiose or irrelevant to the real issues in the claimant’s cases, which I have already addressed. 98. In some instances, NGN submits that even if a proposed amendment should not be disallowed for those reasons, it is still disproportionate to permit it, given its limited significance and the considerable amount of work that NGN will have to do to prepare the new allegation for trial. 99. An example of this could be amendments pleading new PIs where they raise jurisdiction issues. Some PIs are understood to be resident in up to 10 different foreign jurisdictions. Accordingly, questions of whether what was done in those jurisdictions was lawful, and whether what NGN is alleged to have done to commission that work was illegal or unlawful, may raise issues of foreign law. However, as Mr Sherborne points out, most of the jurisdictions in question are EU countries, American states and South Africa, and therefore are likely to have laws that are materially similar to, if not the same as, the law of England and Wales, so far as the protection of private data is concerned. Given the resources that NGN’s solicitors have as a worldwide law firm, I do not expect this to present a real difficulty for them. 100. Further, NGN has already obtained expert opinion evidence about the laws of New York and California, and the federal US laws, in order to deal with the Duke of Sussex’s application to amend to raise one matter that occurred in California or New York in 2016. 101. I therefore do not consider that evidence about the lawfulness of PI activities in such jurisdictions is likely to add significantly to the burden of preparing for trial, or the issues for trial. It is in any event a matter that should be agreed before the start of the trial, if relevant to the selected trial claimants’ cases. 102. Where I consider that, absent other good reasons to refuse proposed amendments, permission should nevertheless be refused on proportionality grounds, I do indicate in the Schedule. Conclusions on approach to amendments sought 103. I have explained above that certain categories of amendment are ones for which I will not give permission. Apart from those, there are very many other amendments, some large and some small, to which I shall apply the following approach: i) The Application is made late, and is on the cusp of being “very late”. There is no good explanation for the lateness, except in respect of the amendments pleaded on the basis of call data disclosure given in November and December 2023. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN ii) The balance of prejudice therefore generally comes down in favour of NGN, but there will be no significant prejudice caused if the amendments that are permitted are limited, do not raise wholly new issues, and are proportionate to the issues for trial. iii) In that regard, the claimants can expect to be held to their assurance that there are, as things stand, no further disclosure applications in contemplation, save in connection with the extension of the allegations to 1994, 1995 and 2012. iv) Amendments that add detail to existing pleaded generic allegations, or further examples of pleaded allegations, or even new generic allegations of a similar kind to those that are pleaded, will generally be permitted, if proportionate. v) Amendments that really are based principally on documents that have become available to the claimants since 2020 should in principle be permitted, if proportionate and not unduly burdensome at this late stage. vi) Amendments that add allegations against further journalists or editors of a type that has not already been pleaded will generally not be permitted. vii) Amendments that make allegations of a kind that are already pleaded but against new journalists or editors will generally be permitted if the purpose is to establish the extent of wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing at NGN. viii) Amendments that introduce allegations against new executives, or yet further allegations against the same executives, may be permitted, but only if they add something meaningful to the case. ix) Amendments that introduce a case against new PIs will only be permitted where the PI in question has some importance at a generic level or where disclosure has already been given in relation to that new PI. x) Amendments that add new allegations that raise collateral issues or entirely new lines of enquiry will not be permitted at this stage. Schedule of decisions 104. The Schedule annexed contains in brief summary my reasons for permitting or refusing to allow individual amendments to be made, to the extent that they are not spelt out in the judgment above. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN SCHEDULE Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection At all material times throughout the relevant period, namely from at least 1998 about 1996 onwards 1994 until at least 2012, NGN was the publisher of The Sun and The News of the World, In support of this paragraph, the following paragraphs of Galbraith 39 refer to: • At paragraph 10, in relation to pre-96 SAP, the 28th Witness Statement of Maxine Mossman dated 23.11.20 {F/348}. • At paragraph 13, in relation to alleged SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE UIG between 1994-1995: • 9th Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith dated 19.02.20 {F/286}; 3rd Witness Statement of Steve Whittamore 17.09.18 {D/92}; dated • Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs Prejudice Delay Limitation Imperil trial/very late amendment Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Too late to extend the period, and too few claimants affected to justify extending the generic relevant period. • Evidence from the trial of R v Coulson, Brooks and Others on 06.03.14 - 11.03.14 {U/60/63} {U/62/5} {U/62/9}; • Rebekah Brooks' 2nd Witness Statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 02.05.12 and oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on 11.05.12; 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) • • • • • • • • 1st Witness Statement of Stuart Hoare dated 04.12.17 {D/65/2}; 1st Witness Statement of Steve Grayson dated 28.09.21 {D/133}; 1st Witness Statement of Yvonne Ridley dated 27.09.21 {D/118}; 1st Witness Statement of Graham Johnson dated 08.01.18 {D/78}; 3rd Witness Statement of Paul 28.09.21 dated McMullan {D/131}; The Insider by Piers Morgan, first serialised in the Dail Mail on 06.03.05 (Exhibit CG39/3-5); Journal Uploads which were disclosed in 01.02.21 and 17.03.21; 28 Lever Arch Files of material seized by the MPS in 2012 from the archives which were NGN disclosed the MTVIL on 18.12.20 {T/1233}; the MTVIL in in • Letter from Linklaters to MPS the which was disclosed MTVIL in {R/45/2}; and January in • Extract from Steve Whittamore's were Books which Blue 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) disclosed in the MTVIL on 27.01.17 (Exhibit CG39/7-60). • At paragraph 16, in relation to alleged UIG in 2012: • PI call data disclosure which was in disclosed November/December (Exhibit CG39/73-92);1 the MTVIL in • An alleged incident of UIG which took place in 2016. The Duke of Sussex has applied for the Court's permission to amend his pleadings to rely on this. The Duke of Sussex made allegations regarding this incident as early as 01.04.20 (see pages 79-82 of Exhibit CF4); • Payments to Cruise Pictures which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 20.12.21 {Z/2895} {J/2.3933}; • Articles published in The Sun which the Duke of Sussex has applied for the Court's permission to amend his pleadings to rely on which were published in 2016; • Call data disclosed in the claim of 1 In relation to the Claimants' reliance on the PI call data disclosure to support this Proposed Amendment, I refer to paragraph 30(e) of this witness statement. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Ciara Parkes on 18.08.23 (Exhibit CG39/93-101);2 and 2nd Witness Statement of Roger Best dated 09.10.17 {F/180/11}. • In support of this paragraph, paragraph 17 of Galbraith 39 refers to the 1st and 2nd Witness Statements of Rupert Murdoch to the Leveson Inquiry dated 12.04.12 and 22.05.12. Entirely consequential to other substantive amendments Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Permission granted. 1A June NGN was, and is, a wholly-owned subsidiary of News International known as ("News") News UK since 2013. NI/News (which also wholly owns Times Newspapers Limited) is itself a wholly-controlled subsidiary of News ("News Corporation Corp"). NI, rather than NGN, was the corporate entity which was a Core 2 In fact, the relevant call data had previously been disclosed on 18.05.22 in the claim of Sean Pertwee, over a year earlier. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Participant Leveson 2011- 12. at Inquiry the in 1B 1. to to which The Management and Standards Committee ("MSC") was established, in or before June 2011, by News Corp it reported, and its function was manage NI/NGN's engagement in, and response to, the civil litigation (MTVIL), the police various the investigations, Leveson Inquiry and the various Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiries. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 18 of Galbraith 39 refers to a News Corp website page which has been publicly available in some form from at least 31.10.13 (see pages 17- 18 of Exhibit CF4). Entirely consequential to other substantive amendments Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused: permission to expand generic case to include allegations of wrongdoing by the MSC and knowledge on the part of Rupert Murdoch also refused. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused: see above. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection The Claimants' case is that the use of voicemail blagging interception, and/or other unlawful obtaining of private information including through the engagement of private investigators ("PIs") by or on behalf of journalists, was both habitual and widespread from at least as early as 1998 1994 onwards at both The Sun and The News of the World, and that this was well- known to and approved of by Senior Executives, Editorial and ("Senior Journalists NGN Employees") within NGN/NI. Staff 1. support of this paragraph In (and specifically the extension of the Relevant Period), see the paragraphs of Galbraith 39 referred to in relation to paragraph 1 above. Entirely consequential to other substantive amendments Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs Prejudice Delay Limitation Imperil trial/very late amendment Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted: relevant to extent of wrongdoing and concealment of wrongdoing. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 5.5 money Further, despite public statements denouncing to paying criminals, convicted NGN made has substantial payments to former employees guilty of or implicated in these unlawful activities, imposing confidentiality requirements in return, in order to avoid these individuals giving incriminating evidence or making admissions about the true nature and the illegality within NGN. Pending disclosure and/or the provision of Further Information, the Claimants will refer to the these individuals include (but are not limited to) Ian James Edmondson, Neville Weatherup, Rebekah Thurlbeck, scale fact that of In support of this paragraph, paragraph 18 of Galbraith 39 refers to the Settlement Agreements of James Weatherup, Neville Thurlbeck and Ian Edmondson which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 14.10.21 {Z/2379.1} / {Z/2379.2} {J/2.3928} {J/2.3929} / {Z/2380.01} {J/2.3930}. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 105. 106. 107. Unnecessary: Enough Examples 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Brooks, Andy Coulson, Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire. The Claimants will also refer to the settlements of the earliest civil claims for interception voicemail brought against NGN by Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford as being further of NGN examples seeking to prevent any public disclosure of the activities unlawful which had been carried out by its journalists. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 5.8 a Further, following notice served by the Leveson Inquiry in about August 2011 pursuant to Section 21(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005, NI was required to disclose to the Leveson Inquiry any documents recording or relating to fees or expenses paid by The Sun to PIs, police, public officials, mobile companies or phone others with access to the same from 1 January 2005 up to August 2011. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 20- 21 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • a schedule of payments to alleged private investigators disclosed in the MTVIL 23.03.20{Z/2785} {J/2.2117}; on • The names of certain ciphered PIs in the above schedule, disclosed in the MTVIL on 22.04.20 {T/975}, pursuant to a request on 01.04.20 {T/943}; and • PI call data disclosure disclosed in November/ December 2023. (extracts at CG39/73; CG39/80; CG39/139).3 Irrelevant (re NI): No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Delay Imperil trial/very late amendment Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted for this and the following paragraphs, 5.9-5.12. Relevant to extent of use of PIs and concealment from the public. This is an expansion of an already pleaded allegation 3 In relation to the Claimants' reliance on the PI call data disclosure to support this Proposed Amendment, I refer to paragraph 7(a) of this witness statement. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection It appears that this paragraph refers to a schedule of payments to alleged private investigators disclosed in the MTVIL on 23.03.20{Z/2785} {J/2.2117}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 20- 21 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 5.8 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as in. §5.8 above Irrelevant (NI): No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive (misleading Leveson is already pleaded) Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Delay Imperil trial/very late amendment 5.9 At some time between September to December 2011, NI produced to the Inquiry Leveson a ciphered schedule of only seven PIs (namely J. J. Derek Webb, Services, Ireland/Northern Ireland/ Priority ABC Investigations, Investigations (Ireland), ABC Investigations Ltd Irish Misc (Ireland), Worldlink Cheques (Ireland) (paid to ABC Investigations), and Daniel J Portley-Hanks (USA)). NI further informed the Leveson Inquiry that the total sum paid to PIs in relation to The between January 2005 and 2011 was £30,474.00. In light of the recent disclosure in this litigation, it is evident that this was Sun 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) grossly misleading, to such an extent that Senior NGN executives would have known that was the case. 5.10 1. the details It is to be inferred that NI deliberately withheld from Leveson of Inquiry numerous further PIs, some of which were used by The Sun up to 2012, as well as the substantial payments made to these PIs whose names were deliberately Pending withheld. further disclosure, the Claimants will contend In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 20- 21 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 5.8 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as in. §5.8 above As above s/a The particulars set out below at §5.10(a)(i)- (vii) and §5.10(b) are further the particularisation of the plea set out here High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) NI that withheld information and details regarding the use of the following PIs, namely: (a) The Sun, about: relation to information in 5.10 5.10 1. (ii) BDI (i) ELI (which was a successor to TDI) from January 2005 to around October 2006 with a spend of at least £63,153.01; (which company was a to successor TDI/ELI) from around October 2006 to 2007 with of spend a £13,565.00 together with further payments to from 2011. It is to be the inferred on Whilst this paragraph does not refer to any specific documents, SAP IXOS PI Documents relating to ELI were disclosed in the MTVIL as early as 25.05.17 {T/139}. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as in §5.8 above As above s/a Whilst this paragraph does not refer to any specific documents, ZC/ZA payments relating to BDI were disclosed in the MTVIL as early as 31.07.20{T/1136}. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as in §5.8 above As above s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) basis of the facts and matters set out at paragraphs 11.77 to 11.79 below that Nick Parker made cash payments to BDI from to 2011; 5.10 (iii) Christine Hart/Warner Agency from January 2005 to 2011 with spend of least at £190,874.00; 5.10 (iv) Jonathan Stafford/Newsree l from 2005 to 2007 with a spend of at least £12,316.00; Whilst this paragraph does not refer to any IXOS PI specific documents, SAP Documents Christine to Hart/Warner Agency were disclosed in the MTVIL as early as 25.05.17 {T/139}. relating Further disclosure was provided on 05.01.18 {T/513}, {T/383}, 29.06.18 05.10.18 {T/583}, 06.04.20 {T/954}, 31.07.20 {T/1136}, 01.02.21 {T/1296} and 17.03.21 {T/1367} Whilst this paragraph does not refer to any IXOS PI specific documents, SAP Documents Jonathan to Stafford/Newsreel were disclosed in the MTVIL as early as 25.05.17 {T/139}. relating Further disclosure was provided on 05.01.18 {T/383}, 29.06.18 {T/513}, 12.10.18 {T/594}, 18.10.18 {T/600} and 1. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as in §5.8 above As above s/a SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as in §5.8 above As above s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 06.04.20{T/954}. 5.10 (v) Andy Kyle from 2005 to 2011 with a spend of at least £323,285 (between January and December 2011); 5.10 (vi) John Ross from 2005 – 2011 with a spend of at least £292,271; and Whilst this paragraph does not refer to any specific documents, ZC payments relating to Andy Kyle were disclosed in the MTVIL as early as 01.11.17 {T/189.1}. Further disclosure was provided on 29.06.18 {T/513}, 30.11.18 {T/627}, 31.07.20 {T/1136}, 01.02.21 {T/1296} and 17.03.21 {T/1367}. Whilst this paragraph does not refer to any specific documents, ZC payments relating to John Ross were disclosed in the MTVIL as early as 01.11.17 {T/189.1}. Further disclosure was provided on 29.06.18 {T/513}, 06.04.20 {T/954}, 31.07.20 {T/1136}, 01.02.21 {T/1296} and 17.03.21 {T/1367}. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as in §5.8 above As above s/a SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as in §5.8 above As above s/a 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 5.10 5.10 5.11 1. (vii) System Searches from to 2011 with a spend of least at £19,782.00. to (b) In relation to The News of the World, withheld NGN of records payments the same PIs as listed in paragraph 5.10 (a) above. Accordingly, the ciphered schedules of The Sun's use of PIs provided to the Leveson Inquiry were substantially misleading in the numbers of PIs used, the period of their use, and the sums paid to PIs used by The Sun between 2005 and 2011. relation to Whilst this paragraph does not refer to any specific documents, ZC payments relating to System Searches were disclosed in the MTVIL as early as 01.11.17 {T/189.1}. Further disclosure was provided on {T/513} 18.10.18 {T/600}, 29.06.18 06.04.20 {T/954}, 31.07.20 {T/1136}, 01.02.21 {T/1296} and 17.03.21 {T/1367}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 20- 21 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 5.8 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as in §5.8 above As above s/a SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as in §5.8 above As above s/a In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 20- 21 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 5.8 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as in §5.8 above As above s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a 5.12 5.12 Further, NGN continued to use PIs even during the Leveson Inquiry (and evidence concealed use), about including using them against witnesses who were giving evidence to the Inquiry, namely: their (a) the Rt Hon Vince Cable MP (in respect of whom NGN commissioned a search by System Searches or around 26 October 2011, as well as tax obtained his records); and on and (b) Hugh Grant, his family the mother of his new child (where NGN commissioned System Searches In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 22- 23 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • 23rd Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith dated 25.05.21 {F/368/10- 11}; and • CSPoC of Vince Cable dated SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Unnecessary: Public Inquiry 03.03.23 (Exhibit CG39/104-138).4 In support of this paragraph, paragraph 23 of Galbraith 39 refers to the CSPoC of Hugh Grant dated 13.07.22. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Unnecessary: Public Inquiry s/a 4 In relation to the Claimants' reliance on CSPoCs of extant or settled MTVIL claims, I repeat paragraph 31(f)(ii) of the witness statement above. In support of the Proposed Amendments, the Claimants are relying (at least in part) on unproved allegations. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused, for reasons explained in judgment. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection and engaged Andy Kyle during the Inquiry). (cd) Keith Rupert Mr Murdoch. Murdoch was the Executive Chairman of News Corporation (at all relevant times), and a Director of NI until June 2012. 7. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 223-229 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(12J) below. Consequential to amendment below Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by RM’s knowledge specifically) Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection (h) Dominic Mohan. Following positions the as Editor of Bizarre column (taking over from Mr Coulson, from 2003), to Associate Editor of Features (2003 to 2007) then and Editor Deputy (from 2007 to 2009 under Ms Brooks), Mr Mohan was finally appointed Editor of The Sun, following Ms Brooks' departure in 2009, and continued until 2013. Mr Mohan worked on the Features Desk of The News of the World until January 1996. 7. 1. See paragraph 19(24B) below. Consequential to amendment below Poor/inappropriate pleading Unnecessary: Otiose Poor/inappropriate pleading Unnecessary: Otiose Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted, though second amendment is relevant only as background, as permission has not been granted to extend the relevant period to include 1994 and 1995.. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection (v) Richard Caseby. Mr Caseby was Managing Editor of News of the World and The Sun from May 2011 until July 2013, and, pending further disclosure, was responsible for providing information to the Leveson Inquiry along with Tom Mockridge. (w) Tom Mockridge. Mr Mockridge was Chief Executive of News International 2011and, from further pending was disclosure, for responsible providing information to the Leveson Inquiry, along with Richard Caseby. 7. 7. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 254-267 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(55) below. Consequential to amendment below As above In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 269-276 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(59) below. Consequential to amendment below As above Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted, as allegations in relation to withholding information from the Leveson Inquiry are already pleaded. Permission granted, for the same reason as 7(v). The pleading of Mr Mockridge in this respect does not amount to permission to investigate all matters High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection (x) Piers Morgan. Mr Morgan was the Editor of the News of the World from to January 1994 1995, August having edited the Bizarre column at The Sun in the years prior to that. (y) Phil Hall. Mr Hall was the Editor of The News of the World from 1995- 2000. 7. 7. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 277-281 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(60) below. Consequential to amendment below As above In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 282-284 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(62) below. Consequential to amendment below As above Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) concerning the MSC and the MPS. Permission refused. No permission to include the years 1994, 1995 in the generic case. Permission granted, as Mr Hall gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry and his knowledge is relevant to the extent of unlawful activity and concealment. See also para High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 7. 7. (z) Stuart Higgins. Mr Higgins was the Editor of The Sun from 1994-1998. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 285-292 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(64) below. Consequential to amendment below As above (aa) David Yelland. Mr Yelland was the Editor of The Sun from 1998-2003. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 293-295 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(69) below. Consequential to amendment below As above 7. (bb) Christopher Roycroft-Davis, Mr Roycroft-Davis was Managing the Editor, and Executive Editor of The Sun from 1998- 2005. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 296-298 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(73) below. Consequential to amendment below As above Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 19(62), (63) below. Permission granted, for the same reasons as 7(y) above. See also para 19(64)-(68) below. Permission granted, for the same reasons as 7(y) above. See also para 19(69)-(72) below. Permission granted: relevant to extent and knowledge of wrongdoing. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection (cc) Bill Newman. Mr Newman was Managing Editor of The Sun from 1994- 1998. (dd) Frederick Michel. Mr Michel was from May 2009 to December 2011, Director of Public Affairs, Europe, for News Corporation, and from December 2011, Senior Vice- President of Government Affairs and Public Policy in Europe. The use of voicemail interception, blagging and/or other unlawful obtaining of private including information, through private investigators, by or on journalists behalf of working for The News of the World and The Sun 7. 7. 8. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 299-302 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(76) below. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 303-307 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(80) below. Consequential to amendment below As above Consequential to amendment below As above support of this paragraph In (and specifically the extension of the Relevant Period), see the paragraphs of Galbraith 39 referred to in relation to paragraph 1 above. Consequential to amendment above Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs Prejudice Delay Limitation Imperil trial/very late amendment Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted, for same reason as 7(bb) above. Permission refused, for reasons explained in judgment. See also para 19(80)-(83) below. Permission refused. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 9.3 was both habitual and widespread from at least as early as 1998 1996 1994 onwards until at least 2010 2011 2012, as in is the Generic Claimants' Pleadings and herein. set out volume of The and/or instructions payments given to, and scope of the wide services unlawful or commissioned received from private investigators or other similar agents acting on behalf of both The News of the World and The Sun in order to blag or unlawfully otherwise In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 27- 61 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • PI call data disclosure in relation to Nick Parker and BDI which was disclosed in the MTVIL in November/December 2023 (Exhibit CG39/139- 162);5 and • An email from Christine Hart which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.18 {Y/80.1} {K/241}. 108. No objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE (including PI payment disclosure subsequent to Feb 2020 and PI Call data) SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES (Dan Hanks, Gavin Burrows, Paul McMullen) 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) PI Annexe permitted but the content of it is to be reduced, as explained in the judgment. Only those PIs previously named in the GENPOC, or in respect of 1. Allegations relating to Nick Parker's use of BDI are not new. A BDI invoice naming Mr Parker was disclosed in the MTVIL on 19.10.18 {L/271/27} and explicitly referenced by Mr Galbraith in his 15th witness statement dated 26.06.20 {F/326}. In this regard, I refer to paragraph 31(c) of the witness statement above. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) whom disclosure has already been given, or who are named in 5 or more CSPoC, may be included. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection the such obtain personal information about as individuals, mobile phone numbers, call records, credit card information and medical The information. Claimants will refer by way of example to those private investigators or other agents identified in Private Investigator Annexe to these Particulars. list of private alleged investigators at Schedule B to the Order dated 3 April 2019, as amended by paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Order dated 1 November 2019 list attached to the letter of Hamlins dated 17 March 2017, including (but in no way limited (Lloyd to): TDI/ELI Hart), Rob Palmer and Avalon (Rob Palmer), JJ (Steve Services THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 115. 116. No objection 117. 118. 119. Prejudice 120. Imperil trial/very late amendment 121. Limitation 122. Delay 123. Proportionality and Wasted Costs: Costs 124. Unnecessary: Otiose 125. Ready for Trial Jan 126. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Intel, Whittamore), Southern Investigations, Jonathan Rees, Glenn Mulcaire Intelligence, (C&E Euro Global Research and Information (Services) Limited or and Nine Consultancy), LRI Research limited (John Boyall, Glenn Mulcaire and Andy Gadd), Jonathan Strafford and (Jonathan Newsreel Searchline Stafford), Richardson), (Gwen Trackers UK (Andy Gadd), Warner News and (Christine Hart), Starbase (understood by to be the Claimants Steve'), 'Secret Severnside (Taff Jones), Commercial and Legal/System Searches (the Scotts), Rachel Barry, Derek Webb and Anne Johnston. 1. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) The Claimants will also rely upon the number of targets named in the 5 'Blue Books' of Steve Whittamore, the private investigator who provided his services named (like others above) to numerous newspapers at the time including NGN's titles. The requests contained in the 4th and 5th 'Blue 1998- (from Books' 2003) related to a very large of seeking instructions information private about individuals made on behalf of journalists at both The News of the also World, instructions from The Sun. The requests in the first three Blue Books (from 1995-1998) were made predominantly on behalf of journalists at both The News of the number and 1. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) World and The Sun. Mr Whittamore started to receive instructions from NGN journalists from 1994, and a payment from NGN is recorded in his ledgers from 1991. 1. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. No objection 161. 162. 163. No objection High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 9.3A The Claimants will ask the Court to infer that NGN has: and (a) improperly deliberately the concealed identity of various PIs on the purported basis that they were "confidential sources"; In support of this paragraph, paragraph 62 and 66 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • 6th Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith dated 25.10.19 {F/272}; and • SAP disclosure disclosed in the MTVIL on 12.12.18 {J/2.1473} and 24.03.21 {Z/1626.2} {J/2.3873}. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE (including from CS Standard Disclosure) Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. This and the following sub- paras are setting out C’s inferential case based on existing evidence and documents, and some 2021 SAP disclosure. Relevant to NGN’s alleged modus operandi and extent and concealment of wrongdoing. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 62 and 66 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 9.3A(a) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE (including from CS Standard Disclosure) Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Enough Examples Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims that (b) paid various individuals and entities in cash to (for example PIs directly a by journalist or via a Cook Thomas money transfer) in order to conceal any audit trail because NGN was aware (or should have been aware) the activities for which the payment was made were unlawful; and (c) paid other entities, the identities of which have not been the disclosed under Claimants, the General Ledger (G/L) code 5520 which is stated to cover "investigations". to 9.3A 9.3A 1. There is no specific document relating to Oztex identified at paragraph 66 of Galbraith 39, but PI Invoices disclosure relating to Oztex was disclosed in the MTVIL as early as 20.01.20 {T/873}. s/a SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY (delayed as a result of being misled NGN’s submissions {C/54/100} as per §66 of Galbraith 39. Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN 9.4 The substantial number of and journalists editorial staff at The News of the World involved in the use of activities, these including those journalists whose names appear in the corner of Glenn Mulcaire's notebooks and in call data to Mr Mulcaire, namely Clive Goodman, James Greg Miskiw, Weatherup, Ian Edmondson and Neville Thurlbeck, as well as who others, commissioned or the use of approved communicated and/or with PIs, such as Piers Morgan, Phil Hall, Bob Bird, Geoff Webster, Alex Marunchak, Ally Ross, Kishan Athulathmudali, Guy Basnett, Chris Tate, Sutton, Bill Ricky Akass, James Mellor, Neil McLeod, Dennis Rice, Johnson, Victoria Newton, Nadia Cohen, Stian Alexander, Zak Newland, Alice Jane In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 67-74 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • Regarding Bob Bird: generic disclosure provided on 31.05.17 {Z/38} {J/2.124} and August 2017 {Z/34} {N/2}. Claimant specific disclosure in Heather and Fiona Mills' claim which settled on 28.01.19; • Regarding Geoff Webster: Mr Webster's 3rd Witness Statement dated 02.06.21 {E/98}; PI call data disclosure disclosed in relation to Gavin Burrows in November/December 2023;6 an Assured Legal Investigations Ltd (Mr Burrow's company) invoice disclosed on 28.10.21 {L/591}{T/1799}; and an email disclosed on 16.08.17 {Z/228} {J/2.505}; • Regarding Alex Marunchak: the 28 Lever Arch Files disclosed in the MTVIL on 18.12.20 {T/1233}; PI call data disclosure disclosed in the MTVIL in November/December 2023;7 and documents disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 06.01.21 {T/1244}; • Regarding Ally Ross: Mr Ross' 1st Witness Statement dated 23.08.18 {E/43} and 9th Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith dated 19.02.20 {F/286}; of Callum Galbraith • Regarding Kishan Athulathmudali: 15th Witness Statement dated 26.06.20 {F326}; PI call data disclosure disclosed in the November/December 2023;8 and documents disclosed in the MTVIL on 11.01.19 and 04.02.19 {L/337/1} {L/510/2}; MTVIL in • Regarding Ricky Sutton: 3rd Witness Statement of Steve Whittamore dated 17.09.18 {D/92/6} and documents 15.01.19, disclosed 28.06.17 and 19.10.18 {L/396/4} {L/61/16} {L/221/6}; on • Regarding Jane Johnson and Bill Akass: ZC payments to Cruise Pictures disclosed on 20.12.21 {Z/2895} {J/2.3933}; 1. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Including NGN witnesses -see Galbraith 40 §74(a) Some of the names are consequential to the 1994-5 period (Piers Morgan, Helen Carter, Dan Collins, Denna Allen, Jan Jacques, Roger Insall, John Chapman,) Footnote 8 is incorrect. It is §31(a) (iii) of Freeman 4 that deals with Mr Athulathmudali and argues that the email address “kishan189@yahoo.co .uk” is not that of Mr Athulathmudali See §16 of of Galbraith 40 164. 165. 166. 167. No objection 168. Limitation Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment 169. 170. 171. Permission granted, save in relation to the journalists/edit ors named in column 4 as relating to 1994/1995. The additional names are the particulars of C’s case as to the extent of wrongdoing, on the basis of existing allegations and disclosure. I was assured that no further disclosure was required in relation to any of the added names. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN In relation to footnote 9, §31 of Freeman 4 is addressed by §§13 -28 of Galbraith 40 No objection • Regarding Dennis Rice: a PI invoice exhibited to of Callum the 9th Witness Statement Galbraith dated 07.10.20 {F/327/223}; • Regarding Zak Newland: an email disclosed the MTVIL on 06.05.20 {Z/907.3} in {J/2.2431}; • Regarding Stian Alexander: an invoice disclosed in the MTVIL on 19.10.18 {L/246}; • Regarding Alice Gregory: invoices disclosed in the MTVIL on 24.05.17 and 19.10.18 {L/0.13/50} {L/251/32} {L/0.15/11} {L/252/59}; • Regarding Tim Allen: documents disclosed by the MPS in May 2021 (Exhibit Conf CG/1-21); • Regarding Helen Carter, David Jeffs, Ray Levine, Dan Collins, Dawn Alford, Denna Allen, Jan Jacques, Roger Insall, and John Chapman: extracts from the Blue Book which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 27.01.17; • Regarding Clare Wood, Paul Ashton, Paul Bennett and Brian Roberts Nadia Cohen, Neil McLeod, James Mellor, Guy Basnett and Chris Tate: PI call data disclosure disclosed in the MTVIL in November/December 2023;9 and • The documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(31A) below, which relate to the activities of Colin Myler. Allen, Gregory (née Walker), Helen Carter, David Jeffs, Ray Levine, Dan Collins, Dawn Alford, Jan Denna Jacques, Roger Insall, John Chapman, Clare Wood, Paul Bennett, Brian Roberts, Paul Ashton, Tim Allan, Colin Myler, Andy Paul Coulson, Ross McMullan, Hindley, Gary Thompson, Neil Wallis, Sean Hoare, Dan Evans, Stenson, Rav Jules Singh, Matthew Nixson, Jane Atkinson, Lee Rachel Harpin, Polly Richardson, Graham, Stuart Kuttner and Rebekah Brooks, Matt Acton, Lewis Mazher Panther, Mahmood, Dominic Mohan, Phil Taylor, Mike Dan Dunn, James Wootton, Desborough and Doug Wight. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) 9.5 The substantial number of and journalists editorial staff at The Sun involved in the use of these activities, and in the use of PIs, including Stuart Higgins, David Yelland, Jane Atkinson, David Willetts, Gary O'Shea, Steve Waring, Mike Sullivan, Alex West, David Mertens, Mark Tattersall, Ryan Sabey, John Kay, Robin Perrie, John Coles, David Wooding, Sue Thompson, Glenn Goodey, Mike Dunn, David Dinsmore, John Edwards Sean Hoare, Paul McMullan, Emily Smith, Sara Nathan, John Sturgis, Chris Pharo, Nick Parker, James Scott, Emma Cox, In support of this paragraph, paragraph 75 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • Regarding Stuart Higgins and David Yelland: cash payment disclosure which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 07.05.21 {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}; • Regarding Mike Sullivan: PI call data disclosure which was disclosed in the MTVIL in November/December 2023;10 and cash payment disclosure which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 27.01.17 {Y/539} {K/87}; • Regarding David Mertens: Searchline and Starbase invoices which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 28.06.17 {M/51/22} and generic email disclosure which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 24.02.17 {Y/318} {K/172} / {Y/319} {K/173} / {Y/393} {K/190}; • Regarding Mark Tattersall: Payments to Cruise Pictures which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 20.12.21 {Z/2895} {J/2.3933}; • Regarding John Kay: a spreadsheet of Objection 172. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Including NGN witnesses -see Galbraith 40 §74(a) Limitation Prejudice Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Imperil trial/very late amendment 173. 174. 175. 176. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. The additional names are the particulars of C’s case as to the extent of wrongdoing, on the basis of existing allegations and disclosure. I was assured that no further disclosure was required in relation to any of the added names 10 In relation to the Claimants' reliance on the PI call data disclosure, I refer to paragraph 31 of the witness statement above. The Claimants are also seeking to rely on disclosure in support of this Proposed Amendment was disclosed in the MTVIL at least 5 years prior to the PI call data disclosure. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) disclosed in the MTVIL, in respect of which inspection was provided to the Claimants on 17.03.21 {K/6470}; • Regarding David Wooding: an extract from Mr Wooding's contact list disclosed in the MTVIL on 17.05.18 {Y/568} {K/563}; • Regarding Glenn Goodey: a Searchline invoice disclosed in the MTVIL on 28.06.17 {M/44/10}; and • Regarding Mike Dunn, John Edwards, Robin Perrie, John Coles, Jane Atkinson, David Willets, Gary O'Shea, Alex West and Ryan Sabey: PI call data which was disclosed in in November/December 2023.11 the MTVIL Andy Coulson, Dominic Mohan, Victoria Newton, Geoff Webster, Graham Dudman, Gordon Smart, Thomas Whittaker, Rav Singh, James Guy Patrick, Duncan Clothier, Larcombe, Ben O'Driscoll, Jamie Pyatt, Ewan Euan Stretch, Ali Ally Derek Ross, Brown, Sean Hamilton, Alex Peake, Neil Syson, Paul Thompson, Colin Robertson, James Clench, Andy Russell, Simon Young, Paul Field, Steve Kennedy, Richard White, Nicole Lampert and Rebekah Brooks. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. No objection 11 In relation to the Claimants' reliance on the PI call data disclosure, I refer to paragraph 31 of the witness statement above. In summary, in relation to (at least) Jane Atkinson, David Willetts, Gary O'Shea, Alex West, Ryan Sabey, Robin Perrie, John Coles, John Edwards and Mike Dunn, NGN disclosed payments to alleged PIs naming these individuals between May 2017 and December 2021 (between 2 and almost 7 years prior to the PI call data disclosure). 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 9.6 The volume of articles published in The Sun (as well as The News of the World) during the period from 1998 1994 to 2010 2012 which derived from, contained or were corroborated by obtained information through of product interception, voicemail blagging or the unlawful obtaining of private information by private investigators acting on the newspaper's behalf, as referred to (in relation to the period 1998 to 2010) in the Claimants' to NGN's Response Request for Further Information, dated 31 October 2016, as well as articles published between January 1996 and 1998 as pleaded in individual Claimants' claims. support of this paragraph In (and specifically the extension of the Relevant the paragraphs of Period), please see Galbraith 39 referred to in relation to paragraph 1 above. Consequential to the amendment above (ie Relevant Period) Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs Prejudice Delay Limitation Imperil trial/very late amendment Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Poor/inappropriate pleading: vague No Objection 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused for the first amendment, which purports to extend the relevant period from 1994 to 2012. Permission granted for the second amendment and by consent for the third. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 9.7 The extent of the types of unlawful information gathering carried out by NGN's journalists as revealed by disclosure in this litigation and/or as a result of separate claims being brought against NGN the covering relevant time period, including the wide range of 'blagging' carried out and unlawful accessing of voicemail messages text messages from stolen mobile as particularised in the PI Annexe herein. phones, and the See paragraph 9.3 above. Consequential to amendment above 184. Prejudice 185. Imperil trial/very late amendment 186. Limitation 187. Delay 188. Proportionality and Wasted Costs: Costs 189. Ready for Trial Jan Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted subject to the restriction explained in para 9.3 above. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 10. The Claimants will ask the Court to infer from the nature, duration, scale and extent of such unlawful activities (including the need to pay substantial sums for the services of private investigators or other agents) that they were and/or about known approved of by Senior NGN Employees at the time. The Claimants will refer in support of this contention to the names of NGN which Employees appear on such invoices or on cash payment- related documents as being either responsible for the instructing private investigators or for the approving expenditure in relation to them (including by cash means of as payments), Senior such In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 77 and 80 of Galbraith 39 refer to: SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Including some NGN witnesses -see Galbraith 40 §74(a) (eg Victoria Newton) • For Stuart Higgins, David Yelland, Bill Newman and Christopher Roycroft- Davis: cash payment disclosure which the MTVIL on in was disclosed 07.05.21 {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}; • For Simon Cosyns and Fergus Shanahan: cash payment disclosure which was disclosed in the MTVIL on {Y/105.2} 31.05.18 {K/673}/{Y/106.03} and 27.01.17 {Y/539} {K/87}; and {K/674} • For Jane Johnson: payments to Cruise Pictures which were disclosed in the MTVIL {Z/2895} {J/2.3933}. 20.12.21 on 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. Limitation Proportionality and Costs: 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted, save in relation to Piers Morgan. This paragraph is a summary of C’s case, based on disclosure that has been given. However, permission for the amendment in this paragraph does not mean that new, specific allegations against those individuals pleaded in other paragraphs are Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) necessarily permitted. Mr Morgan relates only to years outside the relevant period, for which permission to amend has not been granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment Stuart Higgins, David Yelland, Rebekah Brooks, Geoff Webster, Dudman, Graham Richard Barun, Christopher Roycroft- Philippa Davis, Simon Taphouse, Fergus Cosyns, Shanahan, Richard Victoria Caseby, Newton, Gordon Smart, Chris Pharo, Dominic Mohan (all at The Sun), and Piers Morgan, Phil Hall, Bob Bird, Andy Coulson, Rebekah Brooks, Colin Myler, Jane Johnson, Victoria Newton, Steve Mears, Paul Nicholas, Fiona Spink, Bev Stokes, Tara McNicholas, Bill Akass and Stuart Kuttner (all at the News of the World). 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 11. 11.1 1. Senior limiting of Without the generality this the contention, Claimants will refer to the following examples NGN of being Employees involved in, knowing about or approving these activities from at least as early as 1998 1994 onwards: As is already set out in the Generic Pleadings, engaged NGN the services Glenn of Mulcaire, one of a large private of number investigators used by the company, the purposes of unlawful gathering information and voicemail interception in order to produce confirm or stories appearing in The News of the World, as well as in 2005-2006, via for support of this paragraph In (and specifically the extension of the Relevant the paragraphs of Period), please see Galbraith 39 referred to in relation to paragraph 1 above. Consequential to amendment above (Relevant Period) Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs Prejudice Delay Limitation Imperil trial/very late amendment Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims In support of this paragraph, paragraph 81 of Galbraith 39 refers to: Consequential to para 11.29 below • 1st Witness Statement of Greg Miskiw dated 05.12.17 {D/67}; and • 2nd Witness Statement of Greg Miskiw dated 09.01.18 {D/83}. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Permission granted. This amendment provides only time definition to an allegation already partly pleaded at para 11.29. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 210. Delay Limitation In support of this paragraph, paragraph 82 of Galbraith 39 refers to: THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION 211. • The 1st Witness Statement of Greg Miskiw dated 05.12.17 {D/67}; • An agreement between Euro Research and Information Limited and the News of the World which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 12.12.12 {Z/116} {H/532}; and • An Agreement between Nine Consultancy Limited and the News of the World which was disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/405} {N/278}. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. Greg Miskiw, in The Sun. This arrangement, which through was made various corporate vehicles for Mr Mulcaire (such as LRI, C&E, Global Euro Intel, Information Research Limited and Nine Consultancy) started in and continued until his arrest in August 2006. NGN paid substantial amounts under this arrangement, which was negotiated or approved of by Phil Hall, Taylor, Greg Phil Neville Miskiw, Ian Thurlbeck, 11.2 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. The amendment only adds an allegation that others knew about the arrangement with Mr Mulcaire, and is relevant to the extent of wrongdoing alleged. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Edmondson, Andy Coulson, Neil Wallis, Rebekah Brooks and Stuart Kuttner. 11.3A (dA) to the Prior sentencing and confiscation order hearing on 26 January 2007, Tom Crone (on the instruction of Mr Hinton and Mr Coulson) agreed with Mr Mulcaire (through the legal latter's representatives) to the provide prosecution and the Court with a falsified explanation of the This paragraph refers to the sentencing and confiscation order hearing which took place on 26.01.07. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 83 of Galbraith 39 refers to the 20th Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith dated 11.02.21 {F/359}, which itself refers to a series of documents disclosed in 2018. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate Delay Prejudice Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation 220. 221. 222. 223. Permission refused. This is a new allegation of criminal conduct, not “filling in some of the details” as suggested in argument. Whether the prosecution and the court were misled in sentencing Mr 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 224. services covered by the Retainer as Contract, evidenced by the emails and memos that Mr Crone and Mr Coulson sent to Mr Hinton in December 2006 and January 2007. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Mulcaire is a collateral issue not relevant to the issues in this trial. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection is adduced No specific evidence in Galbraith 39 in support of this paragraph, however, Galbraith 39 relies on the content of the witness statement and draft pleading more generally. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Irrelevant (NI): No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes No objection 11.3A (g) the In spite of obviously incriminating evidence received from the Metropolitan the Police and Silverleaf Leading Counsel's Opinion, NI / their NGN and executives (as set in out further paragraph below) continued to conceal the true position and persist in its public statements that activities these limited were one solely to reporter, rogue namely Mr Goodman. This included even NGN's decision to its assert the Defences in in 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. The allegations in the amendment are only one step further than the matters already pleaded, by alleging knowledge of those at high executive levels against whom allegations are already made. The amendments are subject to what is permitted under para 19, below. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) civil litigation in to 2011, as up a by verified Statement of Truth, that Mr Mulcaire's Retainer Contract with the News of the World was were for legitimate and activities falsely stating that as the Judge and had prosecution (wrongly) that accepted The position. will Claimants refer for example NGN's to Defences the in claims brought by Gordon Taylor, Sienna Miller, Jackson, Ben Coogan, Steve Joan Hammell, Kelly Hoppen, and Jude Law in 1. Unnecessary: Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (ie no one says their distress was aggravated by knowledge on the part of these individuals (as opposed to those already pleaded) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) and the period 2007 to 2010; the Claimants further contend that these false statements in Defences must been have approved by the Chief Executive / Executive of Chairmen NI/NGN, namely Les Hinton, James and Murdoch Rebekah Brooks. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 11.6 Mr Hoare played intercepted voicemail the messages of members of the band to Coulson, Andy expressly stating that they were recordings of intercepted voicemail messages (as would in any event have been obvious to Ms Newton, whose by line was on the relevant articles, and Mr Coulson, who heard the messages). is adduced No specific evidence in Galbraith 39 in support of this paragraph, however, Galbraith 39 relies on the content of the witness statement and draft pleading more generally. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N (Ms Newton is NGN Witness and current Editor of The Sun) Poor/inappropriate pleading: prolix Unnecessary: Otiose Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Addition of the name of the byline on the article (against whom allegations of wrongdoing are already pleaded) as someone who would have known that the recordings were intercepted voicemail messages. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 11.13 in If and insofar as NGN seeks to assert that as a result of Ms Brooks being on holiday during the period from 7-14 April 2002 she had no the involvement events set out above (despite the facts and set out in matters to 11.9 paragraphs 11.11), the Claimants will rely in support of their case that this is untrue the importance of the story; (b) the hands-on nature of Ms Brooks' editorship and (c) the long-running and intimate personal relationship which she had with Mr Coulson, as well as their extremely working close relationship, which means that it was highly likely that they would communicated have and discussed about (a) on In support of this paragraph, paragraph 87 of Galbraith 39 refers to Neville Thurlbeck's in his statement of case amended Employment Tribunal Claim, which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.3/4} {J/2.3342} / {T/1310}. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Amendment permitted. This is, in substance, only the identification of a further piece of supporting evidence, which first emerged in 2021. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) (d) these events at the time (or shortly thereafter), the phone and records showing many calls from her mobile phone to Mr Coulson phone and to the Editor's office at The News of the World at the time the paper being was which prepared, inference further supported by Neville Thurlbeck in paragraphs 15 to 19 of his amended statement of case in his Employment Tribunal claim, dated 17 July 2015, where he states that Ms Brooks was in regular contact with both Mr Coulson and himself about the Dowler story. is 1. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Prolix High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection in of the obvious 11.17 Despite illegality Mr Thurlbeck's activities, he was told by Mr Coulson, Mr Wallis and Mr Kuttner to destroy his thereby computers, removing any incriminating evidence of these activities. This is a recorded contemporary attendance note (dictated by Mr Myler to Jane Johnson, Deputy Editor of the the News of World) of a meeting in on 11 July 2009 between Mr Thurlbeck and Colin Myler, who was by that time the Editor of the newspaper, with Tom Crone in attendance. This meeting was prompted the impending publication of a in The Guardian about the "For email, Neville" story by is adduced No specific evidence in Galbraith 39 in support of this paragraph, however, Galbraith 39 relies on the content of the witness statement and draft pleading more generally. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 249. 250. 251. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere 252. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Prolix 253. 254. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere 255. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Prolix 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. This amendment is adding detail in the form of the involvement of others in relation to an allegation already pleaded. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 256. Unnecessary: Otiose following articles already published about Taylor the Gordon settlement. As set out at paragraph 13.5C below, Mr Myler immediately reported the matter to Rebekah Brooks. Further, it was admitted by Mr Coulson in on 16 April 2014 in evidence at his criminal trial that Mr Thurlbeck had informed him about the hacking of Mr Blunkett's messages at the time. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection is adduced No specific evidence in Galbraith 39 in support of this paragraph, however, Galbraith 39 relies on the content of the witness statement and draft pleading more generally. Consequential to amendments above and below SUBSEQUENT WITNESS THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 11.21 B The Claimants contend, on the basis of the above facts (as well as those in paragraph 13.5C below), that by 11 July 2009 Mr Myler, and by 14 July 2009 Ms Brooks, knew voicemail that interception was widespread at the News of the World, and had occurred in 2004; and that Mr Kuttner, Mr Wallis and Mr Coulson, to the extent that they were not already well aware of the practice, were aware from August 2004. Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by knowledge on the part of Ms Brooks/Mr Myler specifically (as opposed to those already pleaded) Imperil trial/very late amendment Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. This amendment only spells out the inference to be drawn from matters already pleaded about when certain individuals against whom allegations are already made knew about widespread VMI at the News of the World. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Support for existing case in reliance on call data disclosed recently. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 11.29 Pending disclosure and/or the provision of further the information, Claimants will rely upon (i) a short communication from the mobile phone of Geoff Webster (who was then Associate Editor at The Sun, and thereby third- in-charge of the newspaper) to Mr Miskiw on 24 May 2006; and (ii) the call data disclosed in Heather and Fiona Mills' claim which showed calls by NGN journalists to Unique Voicemail Numbers (which is direct evidence of voicemail interception) between 25 and 30 May 2006; and (iii) an exchange of between Mr emails Miskiw Geoff and Webster (who was then Associate Editor at The Sun, and thereby third in In support of this paragraph, paragraph 91 of Galbraith 39 refers to PI call data disclosure which was disclosed in the MTVIL in November/December 2023 (Exhibit CG/182- 183).12 SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 257. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 12 In relation to the Claimants' reliance on the PI call data disclosure, I refer to paragraph 31 of the witness statement above. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) charge of the newspaper) between 29 May 2006 and 31 May 2006 as follows: of Objection 267. No objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 11.33 A the outset, From to NI/NGN purported cooperate with the police investigation but in fact did the reverse. See paragraph 11.33B below. Consequential to amendments below Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation/Disproportio nate Delay Imperil trial/very late amendment Permission refused. Entirely collateral issue about whether NI, NGN cooperated with the MPS, irrelevant to issues in the claim. This also applies to para 11.33B and all its sub- 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 11.33 B The Claimants contend that, in August 2006, the immediately after arrest of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, NI/NGN executives started planning and executing a strategy to police limit the investigation and the to Mr prosecution Goodman and no other journalists: 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 93 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • The written and oral evidence of DCI Keith Surtees to the Leveson Inquiry dated 30.09.11 and 29.02.12 (Exhibit CG39/184- 218); • Paragraph 2.60 of Part E, Chapter 4 of the Leveson Inquiry Report published on 29.11.12 (Exhibit CG39/219); • An email from Julian Pike which was disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/1158} {N/730}; • Attendance note (10.08.06) which was disclosed for Clive Goodman the in SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE, namely the MPS Fowler Report, disclosed by the MPS in Sept 2020, as set out a §93(b) and §93(g) of Galbraith 39 in relation to this amendment. Inexplicably, NGN fails to list this document in Irrelevant (re NI): No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes (re Limitation) Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation/Disproportio nate Delay Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) paras, below. This decision is without prejudice to the question of reliance that can be placed on Mr Chapman’s evidence and the Fowler Report if relevant to a pleaded issue. s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) (a) on 8 August 2006 NGN obstructed a lawful search by the police regarding unlawful information gathering in relation to Clive Goodman at Wapping; MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/1161} {N/728}; their 3rd column • Attendance note for Clive Goodman (11.08.06) which was disclosed the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/1167} {N/729}; in • Contact reports for Andy Coulson which were disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 03.07.18 {Z/1162.1} {P/606} / {Z/1167.2} {P/608} / {Z/1178.1} {P/607}; • Transcript of a conversation between Clive Goodman and Tom Crone which was disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/2532} {N/746}; • Letters between BCL and the MPS which were disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 09.10.18 {Z/1178.2} {P/636} / {Z/1184.2} {P/637} / {Z/1184.3} {P/638} / {Z/1184.4} {P/639}; • Handwritten note of Tom Crone which was disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/2390} {N/734}; and • 20th Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith dated 11.02.21 {F/359}. Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Prejudice 268. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere (in addition to the above) 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 269. 270. 271. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE, namely the MPS Fowler Report, disclosed by the MPS in Sept 2020, as set out a §93(b) and §93(g) of Galbraith 39 in relation to this amendment. Inexplicably, NGN fails to list this document in their 3rd column Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Poor inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere (in addition to the above) 272. specific document Although no is referenced in this paragraph, it appears that file notes of the relevant meetings were disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/1161} {N/728} / {Z/1167} {N/729}. 11.33 B (b) a 2-hour meeting took place on 10 August attended by Andy Coulson, Neil Wallis, Stuart Kuttner and Henri Brandman (who NGN had provided Clive Goodman with as a solicitor), followed by a further 4-hour meeting on 11 August 2006, attended by Andy Coulson, Neil Stuart Wallis, Jon Kuttner, Chapman, Justin Walford (who was deputising for Tom Crone who was on leave), Henri Brandman and John Kelsey-Fry QC (who was instructed News by International to oppose any further 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection search warrant or order, production to but went on represent Clive Goodman); 11.33 B (c) multiple approaches starting from 10 August 2006, from Mr Coulson and Mr Crone, to persuade him to plead guilty, say he had "gone off the reservation" and offering him the prospect of later, or even immediate, re- employment; specific document Although no is referenced in this paragraph, it appears that file notes were disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 03.07.17 {Z/1167.2} {P/608}. 1. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE, namely the MPS Fowler Report, disclosed by the MPS in Sept 2020, as set out a §93(b) and §93(g) of Galbraith 39 in relation to this amendment. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere (in addition to the above) Inexplicably, NGN fails to list this document in their 3rd column Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to an email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson and Neil Wallis the dated 09.09.06 and disclosed Claimants by the MPS in December 2018 pursuant the order of 16.11.18 to {G/412/50} {F/359/38}. to SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY 273. 274. 275. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere (in addition to the above) 11.33 B dated (d) On 9 September 2006 Mr Crone Andy emailed Coulson, the News of the World Editor and Deputy Editor Neil Wallis, about a letter September from DS Maberley of the MPS to News International's legal advisers BCL with requests for further information. Mr Crone dismissed DS Maberley's letter as a expedition fishing and included his reply to BCL that very little should be offered; 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a This paragraph refers to file notes which were disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 09.10.18 {Z/1184.2} {P/637}. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY 276. 277. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate Pleading: Elsewhere (in addition to the above) This paragraph refers to the 1st Witness Statement of DCI Keith Surtees to the Leveson Inquiry dated 30.09.11. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY 278. 279. s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere (e) BCL told the MPS letter on 14 by September extensive that searches had revealed only one piece of paper, that no documents otherwise existed in relation to work completed by Mr Mulcaire, and that NGN was satisfied to the material which the MPS was entitled was limited and they were in possession of all relevant documents; (f) The effect of the decision not to co- the operate with police investigation was that very little evidence was forwarded to assist in gaining a full picture of the nature 11.33 B 11.33 B 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection (in addition to the above) Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 11.33 B of and extent of the unlawful conduct, and this (along with the unwillingness of NGN or its lawyers to assist) was later explained by DCS Surtees in his 1st Leveson Witness Statement at [68]; (g) The email from Mr to Mr Crone Coulson September paragraph (see 11.34 below) relaying what Ms Brooks had told Mr Crone that the MPS had told her (that the MPS would only the widen investigation to include others from News of the World if direct got they evidence of News of World the 1. This paragraph refers to an email which was disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 03.03.14 {Z/1184} {P/15} and the evidence of Andy Coulson at the criminal trial of Coulson, Brooks and Others on 29.04.14 {U/88}. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 280. 281. s/a Poor inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere (in addition to the above) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) to journalists directly accessing and voicemails) which Mr Coulson later told the Court during his criminal trial influenced his decision not assist the MPS in their inquiries by for not example, informing them that he knew that Mr had Thurlbeck hacked the phone of David Blunkett in 2004; (h) the activities of Tom Crone in December 2006 and January 2007, prior to the sentencing hearing, designed to ensure that the police and were CPS a persuaded, on false basis, that Mr Mulcaire's Retainer 11.33 B 1. See paragraph 11.33B(a) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere (in addition to the above) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 11.33 B (i) for Contract was lawful activities, and that neither Mr Mulcaire nor Mr Goodman sought to implicate others at the the News of World their in mitigation; paragraphs 11.3A and 13.1A below are repeated; the and facts matters set out in the Report ("Report to assist Crown Prosecutor re Rogue Reporter Coverup"), prepared by DS Jonathan Fowler of the the MPS, in sections headed "Securing Goodman's silence" "Securing and Mulcaire's silence". time because NGN objects to the reference to Fowler Report in the draft pleading. The document was disclosed in the MTVIL on 24.09.20. However, objections were raised by NGN at the the report contains privileged information belonging to NGN and appears to contain legally privileged advice provided by the CPS to the MPS. NGN corresponded with the MPS and the last Claimants correspondence NGN received from the MPS stated that the MPS was liaising with the CPS. While those concerns remain unresolved as between the parties and the MPS and, pending receipt of a redacted version from the MPS, the Fowler Report this. The regarding SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE NGN’s objections are not accepted and are dealt with in §40 of the Claimant’s skeleton argument 282. 283. s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: [Inadmissible Opinion] Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere (in addition to the above) Delay 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) ought not to be referenced in a publicly available pleading {T/1347}. This paragraph refers to Tom Crone's manuscript note which was disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/2390} {N/734} (as referred to in paragraph 94 of Galbraith 39). SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: prolix Unnecessary: Otiose Delay Permission granted. Pleads only inference to be drawn from facts. 11.34 2006, In September Detective Superintendent Keith Surtees informed Rebekah Brooks, then Editor of The Sun, who was approached as a potential victim of the interception, voicemail that other amongst things that the MPS had a list of about 100 victims of voicemail interception, including individuals involved in "politics" and "showbiz", which were 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) not subjects normally covered by the Royal Editor, Clive Goodman. This conversation was relayed by Tom Crone to Andy Coulson in an email on 15 September 2006. It can be inferred from Tom Crone's contemporaneous manuscript note of Ms Brooks' account of her conversation with DCI that she was Surtees informed the potential involvement of Ian Edmondson. about Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere See 11.21B 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 11.37 A January From when Goodman and were Mulcaire sentenced, until April 2011, senior NGN and NI executives (such as Colin Myler, Stuart Kuttner, Les Hinton, Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch) all made, or caused to be made, statements to the PCC, the public, the Leveson Inquiry and/or Parliament, promulgating the One Reporter Rogue narrative. Those individuals, and NGN and News International were corporately, dishonest in making these statements since they knew them to be false at the time they were made (as was later confirmed by Tom Crone and Julian Pike). 1. No objection taken by NGN SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by RM’s knowledge specifically) Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Deficient pleading of allegations of dishonesty. Although para 11.37B purports to be the particulars of the general allegation in para 11.37A, the particulars are deficient because they do not allege, in relation to each individual at the time or times relied upon (which are not themselves pleaded) what High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) they did know, which made what they said dishonest. Furthermore, in promulgating the One Rogue Reporter lie, the executives named in the paragraph above, relied the variously following assertions that they knew to be false: on (a) the MPS in investigation was comprehensive and that NGN had fully with co-operated the MPS (and that there this despite 11.37 B 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 96- 97 of Galbraith 39 refers to: SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N • The evidence produced to the Leveson Inquiry by James Murdoch (16.04.12) (CG39/220-221) and Rupert Murdoch (12.04.12) (CG39/222-227); • The written and oral witness evidence of Tom Crone to the Leveson Inquiry dated between 30.09.11 and 14.12.11 {Z/2146/25} {P/127}; and • The Witness Statement of Julian Pike to the Leveson Inquiry dated between 20.12.11 {Z/2108} 23.09.11 {P/125}. and Further, although Galbraith 39 does not s/a Unnecessary: Otiose Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Delay Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Ready for Jan 2024 Trial High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) been no had interviews, arrests or charges beyond Clive Goodman) (see paragraphs 11.33A and 11.33B above); and refer specifically further evidence to provided to the Leveson Inquiry and CMS Select Committee, paragraphs 96-97 of Galbraith 39 appear to refer in general terms to: • Evidence produced to the CMS Select Committee by James Murdoch (whose letter to the CMS Select Committee on 12.03.12 is referred to in paragraph 19(5B)) and Rupert Murdoch (whose evidence the CMS Committee between 2011-2012 is referred to in relation to paragraph 19(12J)); to • Evidence produced to the Leveson Inquiry and CMS Committee by Les Hinton (whose evidence, provided between 2009 – 2011, is considered in more detail in paragraph 19(3C) below); and • Rebekah Brooks (whose 2nd Witness Statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 02.05.12 and oral evidence to the Leveson is referenced in paragraph 11.71B and paragraph 13(a)(ii) of Galbraith 39.) Inquiry on 11.05.12 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a In support of this paragraph, paragraph 96- 97 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.37B(a) above. Further particularisation of §11.37B above SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Unnecessary: Otiose Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Delay Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Ready for Jan 2024 Trial This paragraph refers to the "For Neville" Email produced in full in the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 on Phone Hacking, published in 01.05.12. This email was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {J/2.182}. Further particularisation of §11.37B above SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE (Fowler Report) s/a Unnecessary: Otiose Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Delay Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation (b) that NGN/NI had carried out detailed and investigations inquiries but no evidence had been found, when in fact an such investigation would have produced key emails between Mr Mulcaire and Greg Miskiw, Ian Edmondson, Neville and Thurlbeck James Weatherup; which emails were both, prior to their subsequent deletion, easily discoverable and available. had (c) NGN that no to documents the suggest problem went beyond one reporter when NGN and its lawyers Farrer & Co critical held the 11.37 B 11.37 B 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) MPS disclosure in the Gordon Taylor (including matter the "For Neville" email) since 2008, and been had the informed by MPS in writing of its existence since November 2007. (d) the Judge at Mr Goodman and Mr Mulcaire's had sentencing the accepted Retainer contract that NotW had with for Mulcaire was legitimate investigative work. that (e) that Goodman and Mulcaire had not had their silences bought. 11.37 B 11.37 B 1. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Ready for Jan 2024 Trial This paragraph refers to the sentencing of Mr Goodman and Mr Mulcaire, which took place on 26.01.07. Further particularisation of §11.37B above Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes s/a See paragraph 11.37B(a) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Further particularisation of §11.37B above SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY s/a Unnecessary: Otiose Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Delay Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection prepared 11.40 Prior to the sentencing hearing on 26 January 2007, the risk continued that Mr Goodman (and Mr Mulcaire) would identify other guilty journalists in order to mitigate his sentence. Mr Crone a detailed briefing note about this shortly before New Year's Eve which was sent to both Andy Coulson and Les Hinton. As a result of this, Mr instructed Mr Hinton Crone to prepare an "Options briefing" on 9 2007. The January proposal was to pay off Mr Mulcaire in order to buy his silence. NGN in waived relation to the MPS in communications the privilege PARTICULARISATIO N Ready for Jan 2024 Trial In support of this paragraph, paragraph 98 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • 20th Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith dated 11.02.21 {F/359}; • 19th Witness Statement of Christopher Hutchings dated 24.09.18 {F/223}; • An email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson which was disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/1227} {N/766}; and • A document regarding Clive Goodman appearing for sentencing which was disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/2642/21-24} {P/136}. Subsequent to ruling the Managing by Judge in March 2021 that privilege had not been waived in the Options Mulcaire briefing. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. This a raises collateral issue about waiver of privilege of NGN vis-à-vis the MPS and failure to the produce briefing not to MPS. the Irrelevant to issues in the claim. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 297. Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples stating between Mr Crone, Mr Hinton and Mr Myler in respect the Mulcaire and Goodman matters, but failed to disclose this briefing note to the MPS as part of Operation Weeting in August 2012 that it could not be found even after restoration of the deleted emails. However, NGN later the informed Claimants on 19 July 2018 that they held the briefing note but were provide refusing to the inspection grounds it was privileged. that on 11.43 It is to be inferred from the facts and matters set out above that Mr Justice Gross' comment about "others at the News of the World" was relayed back to Senior NGN including Employees, 1. No objection taken 298. 299. 300. Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Coulson Mr (who announced his resigned resignation only hours later) and Mr Hinton given their close interest the proceedings. in 11.46 The Claimants will also rely on the fact that Les authorised Hinton to payments Clive and Glenn Goodman after Mulcaire their conviction January in 2007. Evidence was given to the Leveson Inquiry on 13 December 2011 that an additional payment was made by NGN to Mr Goodman of £90,000 in February 2007 and a further of £153,000 (including legal fees) between October and December 2007. These payments were deliberately arranged in stages by NGN in order to ensure compliance with payment 1. 301. Poor/inappropriate pleading: prolix Unnecessary: Otiose In support of this paragraph, paragraph 101 of Galbraith 39 relies on documents from the Jury Bundle in R v Coulson, Brooks and Others {Z/1274} {N/782} and {Z/1275} {N/783}, disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted for additional allegation in relation to matters already pleaded. There is no prejudice caused by this addition as NGN can easily identify whether the sum pleaded is far in excess of what an Employment Tribunal Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) would be likely to award and either admit it or explain why it is not. A similar plea is at para 11.52. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection in their the condition settlement agreements that prevented Messrs Goodman and Mulcaire from revealing any further information, including the incriminating highly material which they had informed NGN Senior Employees such as Tom Crone and Daniel Cloke, the Human Resources Director, that they still had in relation to other journalists. The NGN Claimants contend that the payment of £243,000 by NGN to Mr Goodman in substantially was excess of what he could expect to be awarded by an Employment Tribunal the event he was in successful in his claim; accordingly, the Claimants infer that such monies were paid by NGN in order to buy Mr Goodman's silence. 1. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Unnecessary: Otiose Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Delay Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Ready for Jan 2024 Trial 308. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) In support of this paragraph, paragraph 101 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • An extract from Rebekah Brooks' desk diary which was disclosed the MTVIL by August 2017{Z/1274} {N/782}; and in • An expense form relating to Rebekah Brooks for "lunch Clive Goodman" which was disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/1275} {N/783}. of Objection Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes 309. Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Delay SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY in Based on emails to Mr Goodman from NGN’s marketing dept subsequently identified the “Paragraph 9” data- pool 7 metadata of emails deleted disclosed prior to February 2020. Cs wrote to NGN on this matter 25 January 2021 {T/1281}. NGN has failed to respond This paragraph refers to a letter which was disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 to at {Z/1272} {N/781} (as referred paragraph 102 of Galbraith 39). THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 11.46 A The Claimants contend that, after his arrest and suspension, and after his and conviction imprisonment, Mr Goodman was paid by NGN for various pieces of work carried out from home, and that the fact of these payments to Les was known Hinton and was withheld by Mr Hinton and Rebekah Brooks from the Select Committee in 2007 and by and 2009-2010, the from NI/NGN Leveson Inquiry. 11.48 On 22 February 2007, before internal any investigations had been completed, Colin Myler wrote to the PCC stating that the wrongdoing at The News of the World was confined solely to Clive Goodman. In his letter, he claimed to the CMS Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Relevant to extent of wrongdoing and attitude of senior executives to wrongdoing, and therefore the likely extent of it, as well as concealment.. Permission granted. The letter is already pleaded and this amendment merely adds that Ms 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Brooks approved it. Relevant to knowledge and concealment allegations. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. industry's self-regulation watchdog that "this was and exceptional an unhappy event in the 163 years of history of News of the World, involving one journalist" and that "Mr Mulcaire was operating in a confined environment run by Clive Goodman". He also stated (wrongly) that Mr Justice Gross was satisfied that there was no suggestion of any illegality under The News of the World's contractual relationship with Mr Mulcaire. Furthermore, he failed to mention the fact that the Judge had plainly referred to Mr Mulcaire having acted (on counts 16 to 20) with "others at News International". The Claimants also rely upon a letter sent to the PCC dated 26 March 2007 by Graham Dudman, the Managing Editor of The 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Sun at the time. This letter (which was approved by Rebekah Brooks) falsely that The Sun stated deplored the unlawful activity revealed by the Goodman case and it had made strenuous efforts to ensure type of conduct does not happen at The Sun. that Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere 322. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Prolix Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN 11.53 A In the course of at least two meetings, on 27 May 2007 with Colin Myler, and on 8 June 2008 with Mr Myler and Tom Crone, James Murdoch was made fully aware of the existence of the "For Neville" email and at least the gist of the Opinion, Silverleaf when authorising the settlement of Mr Taylor's claim at a cost of £625,000, and that this was on the basis that the public otherwise, One Rogue Reporter narrative (which he knew to be false), would be fatally undermined. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • An email from James Murdoch to Colin Myler disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/1312.1/3} {J/2.182}; • A list of MPS disclosure in the claim of Gordon Taylor which was disclosed in the 05.03.20 {GT/13}{B/107.1}; MTVIL in • James Murdoch's Witness Statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 16.04.12 (Exhibit CG39/220 and CG39/873); • A Greg Miskiw undertaking which was disclosed in the MTVIL in 05.03.20 {GT/46}; • CMS copy of the "For Neville" to shadowmenuk email which was disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 09.10.18 {Z/402.2} {P/641}; • Timeline from the Jury bundle in relation to Gordon Taylor and Joanne Armstrong which was disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 22.11.17 {Z/2651} {P/163}; • Email from Neville Thurlbeck to James Weatherup which was disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 02.01.18 {Z/374.2} {P/194}; • Payments to Derek Webb disclosed in the MTVIL on 12.12.18 {J.2/1447/3}; • Invoice from Derek Webb which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 15.01.19 {J/1963}; • Email from Neville Thurlbeck to Ian SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE (inc Fowler Report) THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Permission granted for paras 11.53A to 11.53C and 11.53H. These are material to concealment by senior executives against whom allegations of wrongdoing are already pleaded. Paras 11.53D to 11.53G raise collateral issues relating to the conduct of the Gordon Taylor litigation, which would be a distraction from the real issues for the court. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Edmondson which was disclosed in the MTVIL {Z/405.1} {J/2.822}; 05.10.18 on • The Defence and Amended Defence of NGN, and list of Documents Disclosed by NGN in the claim of Gordon Taylor which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 30.10.17 and 05.03.20 (Confidential Exhibit CG39/22-60); and • The table summarising "JRM Plan" metadata which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 09.02.12 (Exhibit Conf CG/118). In relation to the Fowler Report (Exhibit Conf CG/61-117), see 11.33B above. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted: see above. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to the oral evidence of James Murdoch at the Leveson Inquiry on 24.04.12. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. Consequential on §11.53A 323. See 11.53A No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no claimant says their distress was aggravated by JM’s knowledge) SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE as set out in §11.53A THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 11.53 B For the reasons set out at 11.53 and 11.53A above, further the Claimants contend James that Murdoch was not telling the truth when he later told the Leveson Inquiry (as he had told the CMS Select Committee) that he had authorised the Taylor payment purely on the basis that he had received information that, for the first time, linked Mr Mulcaire's Gordon Taylor voicemail interceptions to the News of the World, and not because it linked Mr Mulcaire to a second journalist at the paper, which was fatal to the One Rogue Reporter narrative. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted: see above. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to the oral evidence of James Murdoch at the Leveson Inquiry on 24.04.12. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 11.53 C that over stated In his written evidence to the Leveson Inquiry Mr Murdoch stated at §16.8 that he believed the the Inquiry had documents relevant to his role in the Taylor litigation. However, he also the company had not waived legal privilege advice concerning Mr Taylor's claim against the company, other than the limited waiver over the documents provided to Inquiry. The Claimants contend that Mr Murdoch sought to exonerate himself at the Leveson Inquiry and the Select Committee by relying on a set of documents disclosed which were cherry- picked as a result of a partial of privilege by Nl (of which he was Chairman, and of waiver the 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) which his father was a director) and where he have waived could privilege over all the documents he wished to do so. had that The Claimants contend, pending further the disclosure, court file in the Taylor claim was sought to be sealed and not available for inspection on the initiative of NGN in order to prevent these facts being known, and to prevent further claims being made by PFA members who had left 11.53 D 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE (inc Fowler Report) THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Permission refused: see above. Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Delay Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 11.53 E voicemails Taylor's phone. on Mr The Claimants further that NGN contend withheld their from disclosure to Mr Taylor documents which they were under a duty to disclose and will rely on the inference that the following materials were available to be found on the email archive and in payments NGN's records a simple search prior to the settlement of such a large sum and on such an important matter: following In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Delay Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence As above Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused: see above. (a) three to emails in (referred 13A.7 paragraph below) containing transcripts of Mr Taylor's messages, of 23, 24 and 25 February 2005, sent 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) from Shauna Corr to Greg Miskiw. These are forwarded on 13 April 2005 by Mr to Glenn Miskiw Mulcaire who forwards them all on 9 May 2005 to Mr Thurlbeck. (b) an email of 21 April 2005 containing a transcript of Mr Taylor's messages from Shauna Corr (at to Glenn NGN) who Mulcaire forwarded to Neville Thurlbeck on 9 May 2005 (referred in paragraph 13A.6(d) to it 11.53 E 1. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 324. As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Permission refused: see above. Corr This paragraph refers to an email from to Shauna Shadowmenuk@yahoo.co.uk on 21.04.05 which was ordered to be disclosed by the MPS by 01.11.19 and provided as part of several batches of MPS disclosure over a three- week 13.11.19 period {F/282/3}. from In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) below), 11.53 E (c) the "from Neville" email of 11 May 2005 sent by Neville Thurlbeck to James Weatherup and Ian Edmondson saying "this is a splash any day of the week! Get Derek on to it? We it's know happening." and setting out a series of transcribed voicemail messages described as "JA to GT", "GD to GT", "MT to GT", "GT to JA" and "GT to GA (sic)". This was not disclosed by NGN November until This paragraph refers to an email from Neville Thurlbeck to James Weatherup which was disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 02.01.18 {Z/374.2} {P/194}. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 325. 326. 327. Permission refused: see above. As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 2011, after it was located in Neville Thurlbeck's custodian data in Data Pool 2 which represented the product of MPS efforts restore to deleted emails (and was also on Rebekah office Brooks' computer) SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Permission refused: see above. 11.53 E (d) contributor payments to Mr Webb held on the system SAP and (ZC70297105 ZC70297503) for "27/6-2/7 Manchester Watch" arranged by James Weatherup. This paragraph refers to ZC payment entries relating to Derek Webb which the MTVIL on in were disclosed 12.12.18 {J/2.1447}. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to an email from Neville Thurlbeck and Ian Edmondson which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.10.18 {Z/405.1} {J/2.822}. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 328. As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused: see above. This paragraph refers to NGN's defence to Gordon Taylor's claim dated 08.06.07 which was disclosed by NGN on 30.10.17 {GT/3}. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Permission refused: see above. Poor/inappropriate pleading: prolix and repetitive 329. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence (e) the email of 1 July Ian to Edmondson's News of the World email address from Neville Thurlbeck's yahoo email address with the subject "NTPFA" which included a draft of an article Gordon about Taylor and Joanne Armstrong, obviously based on voicemail interceptions and on the Derek Webb surveillance. Despite these emails and payments, among others, having existed in 2007 to 2008 during the Taylor litigation, NGN's possession of them was in not the documents following verified by a statement of truth: reflected 11.53 E 11.53 F 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) (a) the NGN Defence of 8 June 2007; (b) the NGN disclosure statement of 31 July 2007 which stated that NGN carried out a for search electronic documents or contained by the created relevant journalists on their individual PCs and/or laptop; and on (c) the NGN Amended Defence of 13 June 2008. 11.53 F 11.53 F 1. This paragraph refers to NGN's disclosure statement in Gordon Taylor's claim dated 31.07.07 which was disclosed by NGN on 05.03.20 {GT/64}. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 330. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Permission refused: see above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Permission refused: see above. This paragraph refers to NGN's amended defence to Gordon Taylor's claim dated 13.06.08 which was disclosed by NGN on 30.10.17 {GT/5}. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to the "For Neville" Email produced in full in the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 on Phone Hacking, published in 01.05.12. This email was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {J/2.182}. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive and prolix Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Delay 11.53 G NGN was aware of the "For Neville" email on 1 November 2007, long before it was disclosed to them in April 2008 by Mr Taylor as a result of Party Third the Disclosure Order that he obtained the MPS in December 2007. However, NGN failed to disclose highly this relevant information to Mr Taylor despite being under an obligation to do so. against Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused: see above. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted: see above. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to disclosure related to Mr Taylor disclosed in the MTVIL, subject to confidentiality restrictions on 05.03.20 pursuant to the Order of Mr Justice Mann dated 04.03.20 {B/107.1}. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 104 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.53A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above 11.53 H dated disclosed In about April 2008, Mr Taylor to NGN, by way of a Claimant's re- amended supplemental disclosure list, documents provided by the MPS pursuant to the Order of Master Bragge December numerous including witness prosecution statements (MG11s) from 2006, together with documents including an email from Mr Hindley to Mr Mulcaire (the "For Neville" email) and call data to Mr Taylor's Orange phone, and a contract relating to work on Mr Taylor signed by Greg Miskiw dated 4 February 2005. In the premises, the Claimants contend that NGN had to clear demonstrate the "One Rogue Reporter" evidence that 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) narrative was wrong, from at least this point onwards. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 11.55 Following the successful by Mr application intense Clifford, and discussions between NGN Senior Employees such as Tom Crone, John Chapman, Colin Myler, Frederic Michel (who News was International's Director of Public Affairs) and Rebekah Brooks (then Chief Executive) about the disastrous results if this information was in fact provided by Mr Mulcaire, NGN was forced to settle the claim brought by Mr Clifford and pay his legal costs. This was done by a confidential settlement agreement, negotiated by Ms Brooks with Mr Clifford, in return for which Mr Clifford received substantial financial benefit in order to ensure that he would 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 106 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • An email chain between Rebekah Brooks and Martin Ivens which was disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/1438} {N/806}; and • A file note from a meeting on 20.01.10 which was disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/1418} {N/800}. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) not make any public disclosures about the true nature, extent and knowledge these activities within NGN. of of Objection 345. See 11.21B Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. The allegation is of a purely internal matter at NGN, which is of no relevance to the issues in the claim. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation/Disproportio nate Delay Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Poor/inappropriate pleading: prolix Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry 11.59 A The warning to Mr Akass Thurlbeck In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 109 and 110 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • An email from Bill Akass to himself which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 17.10.11 {Z/1692/1} {H/378}; • An email from Bill Akass to Will Lewis and Tom Crone which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 17.10.11 {Z/1796/1} {H/379}; and • The statement of case in Neville Thurlbeck's Employment Tribunal which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2355.21} {J/2.3339.3}. The Claimants contend that NGN/NI executives Colin Lewis, Will Jon and Myler, Chapman (and, via these individuals, Ms Brooks) as well as News Corp Executive Fred Michel: (a) were put on notice Neville that Thurlbeck had crucial information about phone hacking prior to October 2004, with particular implications for Ms Brooks, and which the Claimants infer the related hacking of the phone of Milly Dowler in 2002 when Ms Brooks was editor; and to 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 109 and 110 of Galbraith 39 refer to the listed for paragraph 11.59A documents above. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 109 and 110 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed for paragraph 11.59A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Consequential to §11.59A THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION 346. As above s/a Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation s/a As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 11.59 A 11.59 A B (b) took a deliberate decision to refuse his request for a meeting in order to avoid being told what he had to say. In support of the above the contention, Claimants will rely upon: (a) a file note of 14 January 2011 from Bill Akass to himself setting out how he had been told by Neville Thurlbeck in person on 11 January 2011 and 13 January he (Thurlbeck) had "devastating" information, learned from Ian Edmondson on 6 January 2011, about phone hacking prior to Mr Edmondson's that 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection that arrival (in October 2004), which would affect many people including Rebekah Brooks and "would undermine the of credibility Rebekah Wade/Les Hinton, Tom c and others". Mr Akass he records passed this information on, on to two occasions, Tom Crone, Colin Myler, Will Lewis and Fred Michel; (b) a memo emailed from Mr Akass to Will Lewis, Tom Crone and Colin Myler of 4 February 2011, about a further meeting he had had with Mr Thurlbeck and day that attaching an email the exchange of 11.59 B 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 109 and 110 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed for paragraph 11.59A above. Consequential to §11.59A As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection to previous day, again making clear that Mr Thurlbeck had about information what Mr Edmondson might the police, say and complaining that no one had taken him up on the offer. Akass Mr recommends that Mr Lewis interviews Mr Thurlbeck, which did not happen; (c) that the content of the meeting with Mr Akass on 14 January 2011 or of the memo of 4 February 2011 was not mentioned by Mr Lewis or Mr Chapman in any of witness their statements the in MTVIL, or by Mr Myler and Mr Chapman in any of 11.59 B 1. This paragraph refers to an email from Mr Akass dated 04.02.11 which was the MTVIL on 17.10.11 disclosed {Z/1796} {H/379}. in In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 109 and 110 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed for paragraph 11.59A above. Consequential to §11.59A THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection their statements MPS; witness the to As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Consequential to §11.59A THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE (of amended Employment Tribunal claim) In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 109 and 110 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed for paragraph 11.59A above. 11.59 B (d) the to that Mr fact made Thurlbeck reference his meetings with Mr Akass in connection the Milly with Dowler matter, in Employment his Tribunal statement of from case September 2011. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to call data disclosure from the claim of Chris Huhne disclosed in the MTVIL on 23.06.23 (as referenced at paragraphs 112-114 of Galbraith 39).13 SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation 347. Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry 11.60 H1 in scandal The inference that Mr Coulson was providing and advice encouragement in relation to the need to avoid both himself and from Brooks Ms further becoming the implicated emerging is supported by the records of phone calls from Ms Brooks (from her mobile phone, and it is to be inferred from the NI Hub to Mr Coulson line) which been have disclosed. This call data shows that Ms Brooks was in constant contact with Mr Coulson by text message throughout the period (January 2010 to June 2011), for which Ms Brooks' call data has been disclosed, and that 13 In relation to the Claimants' reliance on call data disclosed in the claim of Chris Huhne, I refer to paragraph 31(f) of the witness statement above. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. These are further facts to those pleaded in the previous sub- paragraphs and arise out of recent disclosure. Most of the sub-paras of para 11.60H2 are evidence only, but as explained in the judgment, permission will not necessarily be refused in this generic claim for that reason, High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection there were regular phone calls. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) given the way that the current GENPOC are pleaded. 11.60 H2 the However, longest calls from Ms Brooks to Mr Coulson coincide with key points in the chronology of media coverage of the hacking scandal, the progress of civil claims (such as Sienna Miller's), the MPS investigation and the deletions. These include: email This paragraph refers to the documents listed for paragraph 11.60H1 above. s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry 348. 349. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE a) a five minute phone call at 21:59 on 1 1. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) September 2010, the day the New York story was Times published; on b) an 18 minute call at 18:36 September 2010, the that Sienna day Miller's letter of claim was sent; c) further long phone calls from Rebekah Brooks to Mr Coulson on 14, 15 and 16 September 2010; d) (e) a call lasting 20 from Ms minutes Brooks to Mr Coulson at 19:07 on January 2011, shortly after, it is 11.60 H2 11.60 H2 11.60 H2 1. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere s/a s/a s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) inferred, Mr Chapman had told her the purpose of the following day's meeting; the e) (d) six calls from Ms to Mr Brooks Coulson, all from Ms Brooks' mobile first at save 18:41 which lasted 10 minutes and was made from the hub. It is inferred that Ms was Brooks Mr informing Coulson or seeking his advice on, what had been decided the meeting that had just ended; (e) long phone calls from Ms Brooks to Mr Coulson on Sunday evening 10 9 January 2011, and a call from the NGN of, in f) 11.60 H2 11.60 H2 1. s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) to hub to Mr Coulson at noon on 11 10 just January 2011 prior the Executive lunch; g) (f) a 49-minute call from the NGN hub to Mr Coulson at 15:24 on 19 January 2011, followed by a 7-minute call later that evening from Ms Brooks' mobile to Mr Coulson; h) (g) on the day that Coulson Mr resigned the as Prime Minister's Director of Communications (21 January 2011), there is a 4-minute call from Ms Brooks to him one hour before the announcement and a text series of that messages 11.60 H2 11.60 H2 1. s/a s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 11.60 H2 i) j) 11.60 H2 afternoon from Ms Brooks to the Prime David Minister, Cameron; (h) on 25 January 2011, when informed NI/NGN Mr Edmondson that his employment was terminated, there is a 12.5 minute call from Ms Brooks' mobile phone to Mr Coulson at 09:44, another and minute call at 16:42; (i) a 28-minute call from Ms Brooks' mobile phone to Mr Coulson at 09:33 on January 2011, shortly before BCL handed over the three Edmondson emails to the police prompting announcement the 1. s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) that day of Operation Weeting; and s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere 11.60 H2 on k) (j) a 35-minute call from Ms Brooks' mobile phone to Mr Coulson at 08:29 on 24 February 2011 after NI had been for approached comment the previous day about a BBC documentary about the use of blaggers by for phone tabloids and medical data records, which was due for broadcast at lunchtime that day. It was also the same day as a Court hearing in the MTVIL claims. Radio 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Limitation Delay Prejudice Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples to 11.60I On 14 January 2011, the pursuant plan concealment devised by (at least) Rebekah Brooks, Will Lewis, Paul Cheesbrough and Jon Chapman, Nigel Wilson of NI Executive Support was instructed to remove all the.pst files from Ms Brooks personal computer. Ms Brooks was not on the EAS system and, as Nigel Newell had noted, her emails were all stored locally as.pst files on her computer. The.pst files were put onto a USB drive which has not been located or, if it is the USB stick that was provided to the MPS by Paul Cheesbrough in August 2011, has never been opened due to it having been encrypted and News International 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 116-119 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • Emails from Bill Akass to himself on 14.01.11 and 25.01.11 which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 17.10.11 {Z/1692} {H/378} / {Z/1745} {H/73}; • 1st Witness Statement of Ellen Gallagher dated 12.11.21 {F/413}; • Jon Chapman's Witness Statement dated 04.09.12 (S90A) disclosed pursuant to the order of 27.09.18 and provided to NGN by the Claimants on 27.02.19 {G/388} {T/693.1}; and • Emails between Chris Williams, Jon Chapman, Paul Cheesbrough and Will Lewis dated 13.01.11 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 19.08.20 {Z/1691.4.1} {J/2.3281}. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Allegations are already made in the GENPOC against Mr Lewis, and adding this allegation is unlikely to cause any prejudice to NGN and is proportionate. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) refused having to provide the decryption key to the MPS. 11.60B .1 In support of the above contention, the Claimants will refer to the fact that Bill Akass, the Managing Editor of the News of the World, who is deputed to liaise Ian with Edmondson, was not told that the emails had been found until 25 January 2011. This is despite having specifically asked on 14 January 2011, to which he was told by Will Lewis that no emails had 1. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Permission granted, although this is no more than evidence. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 116-119 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 11.60I above. Further particularisation of §11.60I SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection been found, which was false. 11.71 A Sun (the On 11 July 2011, David Dinsmore then Interim General of News Manager International Scotland, and the Editor of the Scottish in November 2006 when the original story about Mr Brown's son was published) sent an email to Dominic Mohan (the then Editor of The Sun) purporting to explain how the Scottish Sun had this private obtained information, medical and, particular, claiming that it had been obtained legitimately. in This paragraph refers to an email from David Dinsmore to Chris Pharo dated 11.07.11 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 30.06.17 {Y/525} {K/461} (as referred to at paragraphs 120-130 of Galbraith 39). In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 120- 130 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • An article titled, "Blagging – the dark art of the men Gordon Brown calls 'known criminals'" published in The Guardian on 12.07.11 (Exhibit CG39A/69); • An article titled, "Gordon's baby was targeted" published in the Daily Mail on 11.07.11; • An email attachment to an email from David Dinsmore to Dominic Mohan and Geoff Webster disclosed in the MTVIL on 30.06.17 {Y/534}{K/469}; • System Searches invoice dated 05.07.11 disclosed in the MTVIL on 19.10.18 {M/280}; • A letter from Linklaters to the MPS dated SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Delay Limitation Prejudice Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples 350. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Paras 11.71A- 11.71F are an elaboration of what is pleaded at paras 11.67- 11.70, but the only matter sought to be established in the existing pleading is knowledge of unlawful activity among senior journalists (para 11.70). The amendments High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 19.04.12 and disclosed in the MTVIL by 13.01.17 {R/98}; and • A statement made by NHS Fife hospital as the Scottish Herald on in reported 12.06.12 {F/379}. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) add considerable factual detail with a view to seeking to establish that Ms Brooks lied to the Leveson Inquiry in relation to this matter, that NGN provided false information to the MPS, and Mr Dinsmore sought to obtain a false affidavit. There is however no claim by Mr Brown and the exact circumstances 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) of this particular matter are therefore only another examples among many already raised. There is considerable scope here to create a time- consuming side-show of some forensic complexity. For this reason, given the lateness of the application, permission is refused. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This paragraph refers to: • A letter from Linklaters to the MPS dated 19.04.12 disclosed in the MTVIL by 13.01.17 {R/98}; and • Rebekah Brooks' oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on 11.05.12. Further particularisation of 11.71A THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above s/a In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 120-130 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in paragraph 11.71A above. 11.71 B On 19 April 2012, NGN informed the MPS via its solicitors, Linklaters, that the information contained in the story was not obtained from medical records or a hospital employee and confirmed that a confidential source was paid £2,000 for the information. Further, in her oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on 11 May 2012, Ms Brooks denied that the private medical information about Mr Brown's infant son had come from an employee of the NHS; instead, Ms Brooks falsely testified that the information was obtained an legitimately unnamed source who had a connection with the Cystic Fibrosis Charity. The Claimants contend information that obtained by the Scottish provided Sun from was the 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) unlawfully by a hospital employee and/or medical records were obtained by unlawful means and infer that Ms Brooks was fully aware of the same when she gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. The Claimants' contention is supported by a statement made by NHS Fife on 12 June 2012 in which it confirmed it was probable that a member of staff had spoken about Mr Brown's son's medical condition without authorisation. that 11.71 C On 11 July 2011 an article was published in the Daily Mail which stated that Mr Brown believed that The Sun obtained unlawfully son's details of his 1. This paragraph refers to an article titled, "Gordon's baby was targeted" published in the Daily Mail on 11.07.11. Further particularisation of 11.71A In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 120-130 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in paragraph 11.71A above. Unnecessary: Otiose Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This paragraph refers to an email from Will Lewis to Dominic Mohan and Simon Greenberg dated 11.07.11 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 30.06.17 {Y/528} {K/464}. Further particularisation of 11.71A THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 351. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Unnecessary: Otiose Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere s/a medical records. 11.71 D As a result of this article, Will Lewis emailed Mr Mohan on the same day (copied Simon to Greenberg) to instruct him to "stay calm" and to urgently an affidavit from both the source of the medical information about Mr Brown's son and the journalists involved so that NI/NGN could hit back at the allegations. obtain 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to the attachment to an email from David Dinsmore to Dominic Mohan and Geoff Webster dated 12.07.11 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 30.06.17 {Y/533} {K/468} / {Y/534} {K/469}. Further particularisation of 11.71A THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose Poor/inappropriate pleading (prolix) 352. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 11.71 E access On 12 July 2011, David Dinsmore sent a draft affidavit to be signed by purported the confidential source in which the deponent was to state that he did not have to Mr Brown's son's medical records. The following of Mr one day Dinsmore's colleagues commissioned a PI firm called System Searches to carry out unlawful credit checks on the source. It is to be inferred that Mr Dinsmore (and through him, Mr Lewis, Mr Greenberg and Ms Brooks) was fully aware information that concerning Mr Brown's son had been obtained unlawfully and that he to obtain an sought affidavit the knowledge that it was false in order to conceal the in 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) the true position. 11.71 F In the premises, it is to be inferred that: (a) NGN provided false information to the MPS; In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 120-130 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in paragraph 11.71A above. 11.71 F (b) David Dinsmore gave false information to Mr Mohan as to the the source information; and of Further particularisation of 11.71A THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate /Satellite Litigation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Limitation s/a s/a 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 11.71 F (c) Rebekah evidence Leveson was false. Brooks' to the Inquiry 11.74 A of support The Claimants will rely the in contention that confidential information about Mr Hughes' itemised landline phone bill was obtained for The by unlawfully Sun Jonathan Stafford on the following and matters: facts In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 131-136 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • An email and its attachment sent by Vicky Waite to James Clothier on 24.01.06 which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.03.17 {Y/98} {K/244}; • An email from James Clothier to himself dated 09.09.04 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 20.05.20 {Y/23.1.1.4.2} {K/3654}; (a) Mr Clothier, who heavily in was involved unlawful information gathering as set out at below paragraph 11.80 was a handler of private the • An email exchange between James Clothier and Emma Cox dated 19.04.06 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {K/273}; • An email exchange between James Clothier and John Kay dated 26.01.06 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.03.17 {Y/103} {K/511}; • Email correspondence between Neil 1. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Limitation Delay Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation/Wasted Costs Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a Permission granted. This is further detail in relation to a story that is already pleaded and identifying Jonathan Stafford as the PI involved. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) investigator, Jonathan Stafford, who was regularly used by The Sun's News Desk at this time; and Wallis and Geoff Webster dated 28.01.06 which was disclosed in the MTVIL claim of Simon Hughes on 02.02.21 (Exhibit CG39/235-238); and • An extract from the "Mulcaire notes table" provided to the Claimants by a source on 23.06.21 {T/1917}. 11.74 A (b) on 26 January 2006 (The John Kay Sun's Chief Reporter) congratulated Mr Clothier on that day's splash and 1. This paragraph refers to an email exchange between James Clothier and John Kay dated 26.01.06 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.03.17 {Y/103} {K/511}. Further particularisation of 11.74A(a) THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N s/a Limitation Delay 353. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence This paragraph appears to refer to email correspondence between Neil Wallis and Geoff Webster dated 28.01.06 which was disclosed in the MTVIL claim of Simon Hughes on 02.02.21 (Exhibit CG39/235- 238). SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 354. 355. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N In relation to NGN witness (Mr Webster) Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere he stated considered the man that was Mr Clothier's contact was very a valuable asset. 11.76 The Claimants will also rely on emails between Geoff Webster (Deputy Editor of The Sun) and Neil Wallis (Deputy Editor of the News of the World) shortly after the Simon Hughes article was published in which Mr Webster sent Mr Wallis contact details mobile (including telephone numbers) of an individual suspected to have been in a relationship with Mr Hughes. It to be inferred that the News of the World and The Sun shared UIG on occasion via Mr Wallis and Mr Webster. is Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Further evidence in support of existing claim and inference, based on documents disclosed in 2021. The issue is already addressed in evidence. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Limitation Delay Ready for Jan 2024 Trial SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION In relation to NGN witness (Mr Parker) 11.77 Nick Parker's Activities This paragraph refers to: Nick Parker is a senior Journalist and Chief Foreign Correspondent and has worked at The Sun since 1988. The Claimants contend Mr regularly and Parker extensively contacted, instructed, and used PIs and blaggers at all material times. By way of he example, frequently contacted and used from ELI September 2003 until July 2006, being named on around 191 ELI invoices during that period. Mr Parker also frequently contacted and used ELI's successor, BDI, including making at least 715 calls between 5 October 2006 and 9 September 2011. He also frequently used and Searchline instructed • ELI invoices dated between September 2003 and July 2006 which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 25.05.17 {M/0.37/5} {M/0.27/6} {M/0.48/11}; • PI call data disclosure which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 13.11.23; and • Searchline invoices dated between July 2002 and December 2008 which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 25.05.17, 28.06.17 {M/61/21} {M/0.17/2} {T/139} and 01.11.17 {T/189.1}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 137-143 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • Email correspondence between Nick Parker and Christine Hart between April 2006 and February 2011, which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 24.02.17 and 31.05.18 {K/104} {K/583} {K/595} {K/657}; • PI call data disclosure disclosed in the (Exhibit 13.11.23 on MTVIL CG39/262–333); • Email to Ben from Nick Parker O'Driscoll dated 21.07.06 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.18 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Nick Parker was the subject of pleaded allegations previously, and made a witness statement in 2016 denying any knowledge of or involvement in phone hacking. As a result of recent disclosure, the case against him has now been formulated in more detail. It is appropriate for these allegations to High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Ltd from around July 2002 to December 2008. The Claimants aver that, as a result, Mr Parker unlawfully obtained private call data and private other information in relation to numerous individuals. {Y/186.1} {K/584}; • Email exchange between Richard Barun and Nick Parker dated 02.05.06 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 24.02.17 {Y/126} {K/105}; • Various draft emails disclosed in the MTVIL on 24.02.17 {K/141} {K/144} {K/148} {K/150} {K/155} {K/168} {K/173} {K/174} {K/176} {K/178} {K/179}{K/182} {K/184} {K/185} {K/186} {K/189} {K/206} {K/504} {K/505} {K/506}; and • A letter from Linklaters to MPS dated 06.09.12 disclosed in the MTVIL by 13.01.17 {R/139/2}. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) be tried, given that they go to the question of whether unlawful activities were conducted by senior journalists at The Sun and the extent of unlawful activities. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This paragraph refers to PI call data disclosure disclosed in the MTVIL on 13.11.23 (Exhibit CG39/262–333). In support of this paragraph, paragraph 137- 143 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 11.77 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION In relation to NGN witness (Mr Parker) 11.78 Mr to also Parker frequently contacted and made extensive use of records the medical Christine blagger Hart/Warner from at least 2003 to 2011 in order unlawfully obtain medical and other information private numerous about individuals including Lily Cooper and Sienna Miller. Between August 2005 and 30 November 2010, Nick Parker called Christine Hart at least 1,763 times. He also procured and conducted voicemail interception of numerous individuals. Payments to Mr were Parker approved by Graham Dudman (the Managing were and Editor) processed Lois by Robinson and Sarah Roberts. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION In relation to NGN witness (Mr Parker) Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence This paragraph refers to the 1st Witness Statement of Nick Parker dated 09.03.16 {F/78}. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 137- 143 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 11.77 above. 11.79 As of part from sworn of NGN's evidence for its attempted claims strike-out against The Sun in late 2015 and early 2016, NGN served witness statements (in March and a April 2016) number senior of journalists from The Sun, including Mr Parker. In his witness statement, Mr Parker denied any knowledge of phone hacking despite there being documents readily available to NGN clearly showing that he was heavily involved in unlawful acts, including the commissioning of PIs These (like ELI). been documents disclosed to the MPS in 2012. had 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Limitation Delay Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Prejudice 11.80 James activities Clothier's James Clothier was the Assistant News Editor subsequently (and of Head Deputy Features) at The Sun where worked he between October 2004 to November 2020. Just prior to his move from the Daily Mail to The Sun in 2004 he emailed of a himself important contact details from his Daily Mail email address, which the private included investigator TDI. Mr Clothier regularly and extensively contacted, instructed, and used PIs and blaggers all material times. By way list at This paragraph refers to an email from James Clothier to himself which was the MTVIL on 20.05.20 disclosed {Y/23.1.1.4.2} {K/3654} (as referenced at paragraphs 144- 148 of Galbraith 39). in In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 144-148 of Galbraith 39 also refer to: • An email from Vicky Waite to James Clothier which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.03.17 {Y/98} {K/244}; • PI call data disclosure which was disclosed in November/December 2023 (Exhibit CG39/359);14 the MTVIL in between • A table of emails from Mr Clothier to his colleagues (Exhibit at The Sun CG39/354-358), which includes emails disclosed and 29.05.20 {K/3654} {K/244} {K/247} {K/273} {K/4765} {K/277} {K/292} {K/134} {K/137} {K/302} {K/313} {K/34} {K/328} {K/330} {K/252} {K/5815} {K/5813} {K/348} 30.11.16 Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) These paragraphs appear to be a broader attack on Mr Clothier than currently pleaded (as amended under para 11.74B, above), which to some extent is informed by documents obtained on disclosure since February 2020. Given that Mr Clothier was already named in the GENPOC, I consider that 14 In relation to the Claimants' reliance on the ELI PI call data disclosure, I refer to paragraph 31 of the witness statement above. In support of this Proposed Amendment, the Claimants also rely on ELI invoices naming Mr Clothier which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 25.05.17 {M/0.51/2}{M/0.50/7}, over 6 years prior to the date of the PI call data disclosure. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection of example, in 2006, Mr Clothier obtained gathered unlawfully confidential and detailed landline call data of Simon Hughes MP and this within circulated The Sun. {K/5867} {K/5898} {K/5871} {K/193} {K/355} {K/358} {K/5994}; {K/394} {K/397}; and • Various ELI Invoices which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 25.05.17 {M/0.50/7} {M/0.51/2}. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) permission to amend should be granted, so that the full picture of Mr Clothier’s conduct emerges. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) No specific invoices are referred to in this paragraph, however, invoices relating to ELI that mentioned Mr Clothier were disclosed in the MTVIL on 25.05.17 {M/0.51/2} {M/0.50/7}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 144-148 of Galbraith 39 refer the documents listed at paragraph 11.80 above. to SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above s/a with used 11.81 Mr Clothier was also in and contact the repeatedly actor/blagger Jonathan Stafford as well as TDI/ELI whilst working at The Sun newspaper. The Claimant will refer to 14 ELI invoices bearing his name dated between August 2005 and July 2006. Mr Clothier openly referred, email in communications sent to Sun to colleagues, unlawful information gathering: 'blagging' (in respect of a lawyer and a psychologist), clinical round mobile turning numbers, phone numberplates and trawling phone bills, information obtaining confidential a from visitors log of a high security and numbers 'spinning' prison his 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) round to find out who people had called. These into emails continued 2010. He also referred to a number of PIs such as Christine Hart, Andy Scotts, the Kyle, Gwen/Searchline, TDI, ELI and 'Staffo' (i.e. Johnathan Stafford). The Claimants contend that Mr Clothier was aware that a number of these Pis used unlawful means to obtain confidential The information. Claimants that these unlawful practices were carried out with the knowledge and approval the News Desk of Chris (particularly Pharo) as well as other executives as Graham Dudman, Managing Editor of The Sun 2004, from Roycroft Christopher and Richard Smith (such aver 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Barun, the Deputy Managing Editor of The expressly Sun) who authorised these payments. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to an email from Mr Moray Laing which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 03.02.17 {Z/1271} {J/2.54}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 150-152 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • 21st Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith dated 17.02.21 {F/361/12}; and • A letter from Clifford Chance to Hamlins dated 17.10.18 {T/598}. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY from email headers in meta-data No Objections (to signposting/heading) 356. 357. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION 358. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 13.1A Buying Glenn Mulcaire's silence … in (bA) Mr Laing's email dated 27 March 2007, in which Mr first Mulcaire's was name misspelled as the "Glen" subject line, was by Mr seen Hinton, the Executive Chairman, as the email was then forwarded by Mr Hinton to Daniel Cloke and Jon Chapman. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 150-152 of Galbraith 39 refer the documents listed at paragraph 13.1A(bA) above. to Further particularisation of §13.1A(bA) SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY from email headers in meta-data THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 359. 360. 361. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere 13.1A (bB) The Claimants infer that the the decision of Defendant to pay Mr Mulcaire his £2,000 per week retainer after his and arrest up conviction, until his sentencing was hearing, the made with and knowledge approval of Mr Hinton to buy his and silence Mr prevent from Mulcaire telling truth the about the extent and scale of and persons other involved in his unlawful for activities NGN before his sentencing hearing. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. There is no prejudice to NGN in having to deal with the additional averment about the amount of compensation. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 150-152 of Galbraith 39 refer the documents listed at paragraph 13.1A(bA) above. to Further particularisation of §13.1A(bA) 362. 363. 364. No objection Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere 13.1A (c) Following a meeting on 10 May 2007 between Jon Chapman and Glenn Mulcaire's solicitor legal representative, NGN agreed to pay Mulcaire Mr £80,000. The were payments made in two stages on 21 June 2007 on 19 October 2007. Claimants The contend the that payment of £80,000 obviously was vastly in excess of what Mr Mulcaire could expect to be an at awarded Employment Tribunal, even if he succeed were claim. with payments These were made, and staged, to prevent to his 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Mr Mulcaire from telling truth the about the extent and scale his of unlawful activities for NGN after his sentencing hearing. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN 13.5 False NI/NGN response to July 2009 Guardian story about Taylor pay-off In On 10 July 2009, in an release made official available on the website of News Corporation, NGN publicly stated in response to allegations of widespread wrongdoing made by The Guardian (published on 8 and 9 July 2009, but about which they had been given several days' notice) as follows (emphasis added): "News International has a completed thorough investigation into the allegations various made the since Guardian story broke on Wednesday. This investigation augmented a similar process here following the arrest of investigator private Glen Mulcaire and News of the World journalist Clive Goodman in August 2006. Perhaps more This paragraph refers to a press release on the News Corporation website publicly available from at least 10.07.09 {Z/1359} {P/6} (as referred to at paragraphs 157-168 of Galbraith 39). In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 157-168 of Galbraith 39 also refer to a CPS bundle of documents disclosed to the Joint Privilege Committee in 2016 which were then disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/2642} {P/136}. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N No Objection 365. No Objection 366. 367. 368. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry 369. 370. 371. 372. 373. 374. 375. 376. 1. The amendment objected to simply sets out more content of the press release, which already is pleaded. It is perhaps unnecessary for C to include an even larger extract in the GENPOC, but given what is already pleaded, permission granted. Permission does necessarily follow for the sub-paragraphs paragraph of 13.5. not is High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN the significantly, police investigation Into Glen Mulcaire and Clive Goodman began in 2005, nine months before the two men were arrested. Prior to arrest the police conducted live monitoring of both men's activities and also kept the News of the World activity in this under area The investigation. raids on Mulcaire's premises, on Goodman's premises and on the News of the World office seized all relevant documents and all available evidence. and police The investigation continued after the all arrests relevant activity was studied and analysed in the context of identifying unlawfulness/crimin police ality. The investigation was incredibly thorough. Apart from matters raised in the Mulcaire Goodman and 1. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN proceedings, the only other evidence connecting News of the World reporters to information gained as a result of accessing a person's Voicemail emerged in April 2008, during the the course of Gordon Taylor litigation. Neither this information nor any story arising from it was ever published. senior Once became executives this, of aware immediate steps were taken to resolve Mr Taylor's complaint. own our From investigation, but more importantly that of the police, we can state with confidence that, apart from the matters referred to above, there is not and never has been evidence to support allegations that: • 'News of the World' journalists have accessed the voicemails of any individual. 1. 395. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN of or • 'News the World' its journalists have instructed private investigators or other third parties to the access voicemails of any individuals. • There was systemic corporate illegality by News to International suppress evidence. "It goes without saying that had the uncovered police such evidence, charges would have been brought against other 'News of the World' personnel. Not only have there such been no the charges, but not police have considered it necessary to arrest or any question other member of 'News of the World' staff. "Based on the above, state can we categorically in the to relation 1. 413. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN following allegations which have been made primarily by the 'Guardian' and widely reported as fact by Sky News, BBC, ITN and others this week: • It • It is untrue that found officers evidence of News Group staff, either themselves or using private investigators, hacking into "thousands" of mobile phones. is untrue that apart from Goodman, officers found that evidence other members of News Group hacked staff mobile into phones or accessed individuals' voicemails. • It is untrue that is there evidence that News Group or reporters, indeed anyone, hacked into the telephone 1. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry 436. 437. 438. 439. 440. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN of voicemails of John Prescott. • It is untrue that "Murdoch journalists" private used investigators to illegally hack into the mobile phone messages numerous public figures to gain unlawful access confidential personal data, including: tax records, social security files, bank statements and itemised phone bills. to • It is untrue News that Group reporters have hacked into telephone voicemail services various footballers, politicians and celebrities named reports week. in this of 1. 441. 442. 443. 444. 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. No Objection 451. 452. 453. 454. 455. 456. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN • It is untrue that 'News of the World' executives knowingly sanctioned payment for illegal phone intercepts. of these and All irresponsible unsubstantiated allegations against News of the World other News and titles International and Its journalists are false. in The Guardian has been selective and misleading its coverage of the report and investigation by the Information Commissioner. There has been and is no connection between the Information commissioner's investigation and the allegation of hacking telephones or onto telephone accessing voicemails. The report concerned the activities of a private investigator who, between April 2001 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN and March 2003, supplied information to 32 newspapers and magazines Including, the incidentally, sister Guardian's The newspaper, which Observer, according the Information Commissioner was ninth worst "offender" out of the 32. The information supplied was deemed to be in breach of the: Data Protection Act 1998. to the When Les Hinton gave evidence to the Select Committee in March 2007, evidence which emerged during the Gordon Taylor litigation in April 2005 was not known to Mr Hinton or any other senior executive within News International The Claimants will rely upon trial. the full statement at NGN continued to publish this false statement on the News Corporation's website until some date after 29 July 2011. Tom Crone, Stuart Kuttner and Colin Myler were involved in the drafting 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN statement of this statement or another for similar publication the next in edition of The News of the World, which statement also contained the false claim that there was no evidence to support the allegation that other News of the World Journalists had accessed the any voicemails individuals. The Claimants emails will rely exchanged between these individuals on 11 July 2009 with a draft statement to this effect. on of 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 157-168 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5 above. Consequential to 13.5 and preparatory for 13.5.2 et subseq SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 13.5.1 The Claimants will also rely upon the fact that the statement is false in almost every respect, and is based on the same false narratives (such as supposed the thoroughness of NI's co- operation with the 2006 MPS investigation, and itself that NI investigated the allegations) the extent of the co-op as the original One Rogue Reporter narrative. had Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. This is just an allegation of falsity of the press release. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 13.5.2 The Claimants contend that owing to its critical the News importance, Corp statement would have been approved by senior officers of News News and Corp International, including James Murdoch (Executive Chairman of NI and News Corps' Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Europe and Asia), and Rebekah Brooks (who had been announced in June the prospective CEO from September 2009) and that: as In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 157-168 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5 above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 457. Irrelevant: relevance stated purposes No to Cs’ 458. 459. 460. 461. 462. 463. 464. 465. See 11.53A of (a) James Murdoch knew it to be false his because knowledge of the "for Neville" email and his knowledge Michael of QC's Silverleaf 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This is an allegation of knowledge and approval by Mr James Murdoch and Ms Brooks. It is clearly relevant to the case of corporate concealment by NGN, given that NGN does not admit that what was said was false and that the statement was a public statement. The allegations of knowledge of falsity are properly Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) backed up on this occasion with particulars of knowledge. Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection advice dated June 2008 he had been shown or informed of in or around June 2008; (b) Ms Brooks knew it to be false because (as set out in detail at paragraph 19(5G) onwards below) she: (i) knew about the widespread use phone- of the hacking at News the of World before, during and after 13.5.2 13.5.2 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 157-168 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5 above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N See 11.21B s/a In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 157-168 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5 above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) her editorship; she (ii) had been told by DCI Surtees on September 2006 that there were scores of non-Royal victims, and that there was a link to Ian Edmondson, which immediately informed Mr Crone about; and (iii) was aware of the 2006-7 cover-up from her relationship with Andy Coulson, and as shown by of her offer employment to Mr Goodman when he came out prison. 13.5.2 13.5.2 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 157-168 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5 above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere s/a In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 157-168 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5 above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection that 13.5.3 The Claimants will seek the inference that Rupert Murdoch, as Executive Chairman of News Corp and a Director of NI, was told about the Guardian allegations before and after publication and the denial knew published his by company (which would have needed to be approved by the News including Corp Board his other son and fellow Director of News Corp at the Lachlan Murdoch) was false or at the very least turned a blind eye to its veracity and the that allegations. time, of In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 157-168 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5 above. NEW WITNESS (as §13.5 above) THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation/Wasted Costs Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by RM’s knowledge specifically) Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Whether Mr Rupert Murdoch knew of falsity is irrelevant, as explained in the judgment, because it adds nothing material to the allegations that Mr James Murdoch and Ms Brooks knew. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 161-162 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5A above. NEW WITNESS (as §13.5 above) THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 466. Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Delay 13.5B This statement was published in the News of the World on 12 July 2009 despite Mr Myler and Mr Crone having been told on Saturday 11 July 2009 by Neville Thurlbeck that he had hacked the phone of David Blunkett in 2004 and that Neil Wallis, Andy Coulson and Stuart Kuttner knew this at the time; and the Claimants contend therefore Mr Myler and Mr Crone published this statement newspaper, in knowing it to be false. The Claimants repeat paragraph 11.18 above. the Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This is a new allegation of knowing falsity, related to existing allegations relating to Mr Thurlbeck, which is not based on newly disclosed documents but essentially on one 2011 witness statement of Mr Myler. It is material to the question of whether wrongdoing was deliberately concealed in public 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 13.5C In his 2nd witness statement (MG11) to the MPS on 21 December 2011, Mr Myler states that after being told by Mr Thurlbeck about the Blunkett hacking in 2004, he immediately dictated a note of the his to conversation Deputy Editor, Jane Johnson, and then he and Mr Crone arranged to see Ms Brooks to tell her (in her role as acting Chief Executive of NI) what 1. This paragraph refers to the 2nd Witness Statement of Colin Myler to the MPS which was disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/2642} {P/136}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 161-162 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5A above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Delay Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) statements. It is relatively easy for NGN to address, both in pleading in response to it and in evidence. Permission granted. This merely pleads the content of Mr Myler’s witness statement. Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 13.5D Mr Thurlbeck had said. That meeting took place on Tuesday morning 14 July 2009, and was followed by another, the same day outside the between Mr office Myler and Ms Brooks. In the same witness statement Mr Myler goes on to state that in early 2011, a couple of days after a Wapping dinner for sponsors of the 2012 Olympics he asked her whether she had "the boss everything" (by which he meant, Rupert Murdoch) and he stated that Ms Brooks said that she "had now". told This paragraph refers to the 2nd Witness Statement of Colin Myler to the MPS which was disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/2642} {P/136}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 161-162 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5A above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As this merely pleads what the witness statement says, permission is granted. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Proportionality and Costs: 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by RM’s knowledge specifically) Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 467. Irrelevant: relevance stated purposes No to Cs’ 468. Unnecessary: Enough Examples As above; see 11.21B (Rebekah), 1153B (JM) and 13.5.3 (RM). 13.5E The Claimants therefore contend that: as (a) (to the extent that she did not know the already, Claimants aver) Ms Brooks knew about the 2004 Blunkett hacking from at the latest 14 July 2009; In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 161-162 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5A above. Further particularisation of §13.5D THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted, as this merely sets out C’s inferential case, assuming that Mr Myler’s witness statement is true. 13.5E 13.5E (b) she would have told Executive her Chairman, James Murdoch, as soon as she the learned information, as not to do so would have grossly been and irresponsible a represent dereliction of her duty the to Company's stakeholders; (c) she also told Rupert Murdoch (who had just appointed her to be CEO of NI), as she confirmed to Mr Myler she had done so by early 2011); High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 161-162 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5A above. Further particularisation of §13.5D As above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. This is mere speculation, or argument, not fact. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 161-162 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5A above. Further particularisation of §13.5D THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation/Wasted Costs Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Permission refused. Whether Mr Rupert Murdoch also knew the matters alleged adds nothing to the claim that senior executives of NGN were aware. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by RM’s knowledge specifically) Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted, save for the references to Mr James Murdoch and Mr Rupert Murdoch. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 161-162 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5A above. Further particularisation of §13.5D As above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 13.5E (d) on in (ii) the basis of 13.5C paragraph above alone, from that point (until at least April 2011) (i) continuing the publication of the Guardian denial (on Corp's News the website), failure to retract the statement the News of the World, (iii) the responses to the PCC, (iv) the response the CMS Select Committee Report in February 2010, (v) the response to the New York in Times September 2010, and (vi) the position in NGN's defences to phone hacking claims, promulgating article the to 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) One Rogue Reporter narrative, (or where given caused to be given, or approved/endorsed) by Mr Myler, Mr Crone, Ms Brooks, James Murdoch and/or Rupert Murdoch were all knowingly false; and 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted, save for the references to Mr James Murdoch and Mr Rupert Murdoch. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 161-162 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.5A above. Further particularisation of §13.5D As above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 13.5E (e) on to the basis of 13.5C paragraph and (in the case of Rupert Murdoch) 13.5D above, that (i) the evidence to the Leveson Inquiry in 2011-2, (ii) the evidence the Home Affairs and Select CMS Committees and CMS Inquiries in the 2011-2, evidence given to Ofcom's review of the Murdochs as "fit proper" and broadcast licence holders in 2011-12, and the (iv) evidence given to the Privileges Committee in 2012- 6 on the question of whether there had been a cover-up, and concealment (iii) 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) evidence false all given, was false knowingly where given (or caused to be given, or approved/endorsed) by Mr Myler, Mr Crone, Ms Brooks, James Murdoch Rupert and/or Murdoch. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to an article titled, "News of the World phone hacking more told" widespread published by The Guardian on 14.07.09 (as referred to at paragraphs 164-165 of Galbraith 39). than claimed, MPs In support of this paragraph, paragraph 164- 165 of Galbraith 39 also refer to a memo from Neville Thurlbeck to Colin Myler and Tom Crone which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/1363} {J/2.192}. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Delay Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry 13.8.1 The Thurlbeck memo implicating Greg Miskiw and Ian Edmondson On 14 July 2009, The Guardian published a the "For story about email, Neville" including redacted a version of the email, showed (which transcripts of Gordon Taylor's voicemail messages being sent by Ross reporter Hindley/Hall to Glenn Mulcaire the subject line "Transcript the for Neville". On following day, Neville Thurlbeck wrote to Colin Myler and Tom Crone, with the aim of exonerating himself in relation hacking to Gordon Taylor's phone, or knowing that it had In been hacked. the implicated letter under he 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This is an allegation involving documents that C has had available for many years, but is only now being made in detail by C. It involves numerous individuals and is of some complexity. The allegation relates in particular to Mr Myler and Mr Crone and argues that on the basis of the documents seen statements High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection James Greg Miskiw, and Weatherup Ian especially Edmondson, and identified the fact that there would be payment records to photographers and to Derek Webb (a PI used and photograph targets), as indeed there were. tail to Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) made by them were knowingly false. There are already allegations made against Mr Myler (paras 19(29)- 19(31)) and Mr Crone (paras 19(41) and 19(42)) in relation to connected and similar matters. Accordingly, permission is granted notwithstandin g the lateness of the amendment. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) As above s/a This paragraph refers to an email from Ian Edmondson to Mr Thurlbeck which was the MTVIL on 05.10.18 disclosed {Z/405.1} {J/2.822}. in In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 164-165 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.8.1 above. Further particularisation of §13.8.1 SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 13.8.2 Mr Thurlbeck also stated that he had found in his personal email account a relevant email with the subject line "NTPFA" which was sent from him to Ian Edmondson (at NGN) on 1 July 2005, and which contains a draft article containing quotes that derive from the voicemails. That in email only exists form hardcopy (downloaded from Mr Thurlbeck's email account on 15 July 2009) and was only disclosed to in the Claimants October 2018 after the Court ordered disclosure by NGN of material found in Tom Crone's office in 2011 and seized by the MPS at that time. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 13.8.3 The Claimants contend that on the basis of this information alone: In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 164-165 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.8.1 above. Further particularisation of §13.8.1 (a) Mr Myler and Mr Crone knew that at three other least senior news executives had been involved the phone hacking of Mr Taylor, as well as Mr Thurlbeck. in SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Delay Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a 13.8.3 (b) subsequent This paragraph refers to: communications by Mr Myler and Mr Crone promulgating the One Rogue Reporter narrative were and false misleading, including their oral evidence the CMS Select Committee on 27 2009, Mr July written Myler's at • Oral evidence of Colin Myler and Tom Crone at the CMS Select Committee on 27.07.09; and • Mr Myler's written submission to the CMS Select Committee in 2009; and • Communications between Mr Myler and the PCC which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 14.02.17 {Z/1371} {J/2.89}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 164-165 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.8.1 above. 1. Further particularisation of §13.8.1 469. As above s/a SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) submissions to the CMS Select Mr Committee, Myler's subsequent correspondence with the PCC of 5 August 2009. 13.8.3 (c) to subsequent communications by Mr Myler and/or Mr the Crone Leveson Inquiry in 2011-2; the CMS Select Committee in the 2011-2, Privileges Select Committee in 2013- 2016, the question of whether they had engaged in a cover-up, were false and misleading. and on As above s/a Further particularisation of §13.8.1 SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Whilst this paragraph does not refer to specific communications between Mr Myler, Mr Crone and the Committees, the relevant following documents contain communications: • The 1st to 4th Witness Statements of Colin Myler to the Leveson Inquiry dated 30.09.11, 24.11.11, 02.12.11, and 31.10.12; • The 1st and 2nd Witness Statements of Tom Crone to the Leveson Inquiry dated 30.09.11 and provided in response to a letter from a Leveson Inquiry solicitor dated 25.11.11; • The CMS Select Committee Eleventh Report publicly available from at least 01.05.12 (see page 13 of Exhibit CF4); 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection and • The Privileges Select Committee First Report publicly available from at least 14.09.16 (see page 28 of Exhibit CF4). In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 164-165 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.8.1 above. This paragraph refers to a NI public statement in February 2010 {Z/1438.1} {P/625}. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 13.8.4 In February 2010, NI issued a public statement launching a strong attack the CMS Select on Committee, following the publication of its report "Press Standards Privacy and Libel", despite the fact that the findings made the Report were true. The Claimants contend that owing to the importance in 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This appears to be an entirely discrete matter, and is the basis for speculation only by C. It adds nothing. Permission refused. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 470. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Paragraph 13.11 references an article titled "Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Beyond" published in the New York Times on 01.09.10 {Z/1548} {P/5} (as referred to at paragraphs 170-172 of Galbraith 39). SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY based on public domain information THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 13.11 of this public statement it would have been approved by the senior officers of the Company who knew it to be false, including CEO Rebekah Brooks and Chairman James Murdoch. In September 2010, in response to allegations of widespread unlawful activity at NGN that were made in the New York Times, The News of the World issued a public statement in which it falsely stated that: "we reject absolutely any suggestion that there was a widespread culture of wrongdoing at the 'News of the World'. The News of the World Managing Editor Bill Akass also sent a detailed, on-the- record, response to the allegations which had been put to News Corp 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Adds only a further factual detail to an existing pleaded matter, and an inference sought to be drawn. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) in of advance publication) which the infer was Claimants drafted by NGN/NI executives, and which was published in full on the New York Times website. The Claimants contend that, owing to the critical importance of the New York Times article, and the fact that it had been published by this well- respected US media outlet and News Corp competitor, this statement and Mr Akass's letter would have been approved by the senior officers of the News 13.11 A 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 170-172 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.11 above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY based on public domain information THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 476. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel Permission granted, save in relation to the specific allegation involving Rupert Murdoch, which adds nothing to the case. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) lite Litigation/Wasted Costs Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by RM’s knowledge specifically) Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment See below 13.15(f)-(j). in relation to paragraphs Preparatory to the subsequent Drafting only Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Permission granted. Amendment for clarity only. International/News Corp including Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch, and that in doing so all three knew the statement was false, and paragraph 19 below is repeated. that 13.15 Pending disclosure and/or the provision of further information, the Claimants will refer to the following by way of example of NGN/NI misleading the Leveson Inquiry in relation to both The Sun and the News of the World: 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Disproportiona te to introduce allegation against a newly-named journalist whose alleged involvement is minor. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers Statement of Sharon Marshall Leveson Inquiry dated 20.12.11. to the Witness the to In support of this paragraph, paragraph 175 of Galbraith 39 refers invoices relating to System Searches, TDI/ELI, Searchline and Steve Whittamore which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 15.05.17 {L/0.52/2}, 19.10.18 28.06.17 {L/46/82}. {L/238/12} and SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Limitation Delay Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Unnecessary: Enough Examples Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 13.15 (f) Sharon Marshall (who worked at the News of the World from 2002-2004 as and TV Editor ghost-writer for column) celebrity written gave evidence the to Leveson Inquiry in she 2011 where stated at paragraph 68 that she made calls to only one private investigator to obtain addresses or mobile phone numbers as part of legitimate investigations and such contact was legal and entirely ethical. In fact, in her two years at the News of the World, Ms Marshall used System Searches (8 times), TDI/ELI (9 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) times), Searchline and Steve Whittamore. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection to This paragraph refers the Witness Statement of Sean Hamilton to the Leveson Inquiry dated 04.01.12 and PI call data disclosure disclosed in the MTVIL in November/December 2023. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 176 of Galbraith 39 refers to an ELI invoice which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 28.06.17 {M/59/65}. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 477. 478. 479. 480. As above 13.15 (g) Sean Hamilton (who worked at The Sun as a reporter from 2003-2005 as a Showbiz Reporter, from as Bizarre Deputy Editor until 2007, when he left for the Sunday Mirror, returning as Deputy Showbox Editor on the Bizarre column 2009-2010 from and from 2010 was Editor) Features written gave the to evidence Inquiry Leveson January dated 4 2012 where he states at paragraphs 39, 40 and 43 that he was not aware of payments being made to PIs, never had contact with anyone who could 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. More proportionate as Mr Hamilton already named in GENPOC at para 9.5 and his involvement at The Sun was over a greater period of time and at the date of the Leveson Inquiry High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) be described as a PIs and stated that freelancers paid to conduct searches of publicly available databases (such as the electoral register or Companies House) had to be legal and subject to the same rules as any member of staff. In fact, at The Sun, Mr Hamilton used ELI (11 times), and called System Searches at least once. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Mr Thurlbeck is a central figure in issues that are already pleaded. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers the Witness Statement of Neville Thurlbeck to the Leveson Inquiry provided prior to 12.12.11. to In support of this paragraph, paragraph 177 of Galbraith 39 refers to a Starbase invoice and a Warner invoice which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 15.05.17 {L/0.42/3} and 28.06.17 {L/36/4}. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 481. 482. As above 13.15 (h) Neville Thurlbeck (who worked at the News of the World between 1994 and 2011), mostly in the role Chief of gave Reporter, written evidence to the Leveson Inquiry dated between 21 November 2011 and 12 December 2011. undated In his statement made in response to the letter from the Leveson Inquiry dated 23 November 2011, Mr Thurlbeck stated that he was not aware of the of practice blagging taking place at the News of the World. In fact, Mr Thurlbeck used PIs who specialised in blagging such as Mulcaire, Glenn Christine Hart, Steve and Whittamore 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Starbase. It is to be inferred that Mr Thurlbeck was aware such private that investigators used blagging due to his prolific use of them and his use of the material produced by them. 13.15 (i) Gary O'Shea, a Sun reporter, gave witness statement (and oral evidence) the setting out his information gathering activities in relation to The Sun's coverage of Christopher Jefferies falsely who was accused of the murder of his tenant Joanna 1. This paragraph refers the Witness Statement of Gary O'Shea to the Leveson Inquiry dated 17.01.12 (Exhibit CG39/361- 364) and his oral evidence on 24.01.12. to SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY based on recent CSPoC of Christopher Jefferies – omitted by NGN in its 4th column 483. 484. As above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Permission refused. Disproportiona te. Mr O’Shea is not previously named in the GENPOC. His position as a witness in the Leveson High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection failed His Yeates. evidence to include any reference to the use of PIs by The Sun on this story own nor to his of use extensive System Searches. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Inquiry is too peripheral and this allegation appears to be specific to Mr Jefferies’ claim. This refusal is without prejudice to the naming of Mr O’Shea in para 9.5 above in relation to recent call data disclosure. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) This paragraph refers the witness statement of Steve Waring to the Leveson Inquiry dated 16.01.12 and his oral evidence on 24.01.12. to of Objection 485. As above SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY based on recent CSPoC of Christopher Jefferies – omitted by NGN in its 4th column THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 13.15 in (j) Steve Waring (an editorial executive at The Sun since 2001) who was acting Editor at the relevant time of the articles about Mr Christopher Jefferies late December 2010 and early January 2011) provided a witness statement (and oral setting evidence) out how The Sun came to publish the libellous and articles intrusive about Mr Jefferies. Mr Waring failed to mention the extensive use by Sun reporters of PIs which included System Searches, Mike Behr and AJK Research, but rather he that stated tracing of the Mr 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Disproportiona te. Mr Waring is not previously named in the GENPOC. His position as a witness in the Leveson Inquiry is too peripheral and this allegation appears to be specific to Mr Jefferies’ claim. This refusal is without prejudice to the naming of Mr Waring in para 9.5 above in relation to recent call data High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) disclosure. Jefferies' Associates and other relevant persons was done using Tracesmart. 13.15 A News International, was a Core Participant at the Leveson Inquiry and under a duty to provide full and honest evidence to the Inquiry. At the time that the statements listed in paragraph 15 were drafted, when they were circulated Core Participants, and/or when the oral testimony set out in paragraph 15 below was given, News International/ NGN was to 1. is adduced in No specific evidence Galbraith 39 in support of this paragraph; however, Galbraith 39 relies on the content of the witness statement and draft pleading more generally. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no Permission refused. The allegation about misleading the Leveson Inquiry is already pleaded and the status of NI not in doubt. This is merely an attempt to High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection one says their distress was aggravated by RM’s knowledge specifically) Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment that false aware information was provided to the Inquiry, or was reckless as to the truth or falsity of the information given, by virtue of the fact that it held payment records in its SAP system and other searchable records which the contradicted evidence provided. In the premises, NI/NGN failed in its duty of candour to the Leveson Inquiry, through the inaction of its executives, namely the Tom CEO NI the NI Mockridge, Chairman James Murdoch, and (through the role of the MSC in NI managing engagement with the Inquiry) the Executive of News Chairman Corporation, Rupert Murdoch who all knew this evidence to be false. the 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) bring collateral allegations about the MSC into the arena and to attack senior executives who are not otherwise the subject of allegations, such as Mr Mockridge and Mr Rupert Murdoch. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted save in relation to the last sentence of sub-para (a). High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection No specific evidence Galbraith 39 in support of this paragraph. is adduced in SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Call data disclosed in claim of Ciara Parkes as mentioned in the pleading at 13.15B(a) CSPoC of Sir Vince Cable and Hugh Grant set out at §5.12 above as pleaded in 13.15B(b) Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Unnecessary: Public Inquiry 486. 487. 488. 489. Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 13.15 B Even during the Leveson Inquiry itself (set up on July 2011 with hearings taking place from November 2011 onwards), NGN continued to engage in information unlawful including gathering phone In this support contention the Claimant will rely amongst other things upon: hacking. of (a) the inference from the hundreds of calls made to Jude Law's mobile phone by NGN journalists at The Sun between 2004 to December 2011 that these calls were made for the purposes the unlawful interception of his voicemails (which is have to likely of 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) private contained about information his and him associates). This included the period when court action taken against was NGN by Jude Law, Sienna Miller, Ben Jackson and Ciara Parkes. In December alone Mr Law's mobile phone eight called was times by journalists from The Sun with the call last disclosed by NGN (ending in 2011) taking place on 21 December 2011. It can be inferred that the same and similar unlawful information gathering continued until at least 2012. (b) the facts pleaded at 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) paragraph above. 5.12 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 13.17 (iv) Ms Brooks' use of Ray Levine, her Features Deputy Editor in 1994-5 at the News of the World, to engage the PI Severnside (Taff Jones) to trace other associates of Ross Kemp at an earlier point in time when Ms Brooks was Deputy Editor of The Sun in 1998- 9. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 182 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • An invoice dated 3 September 1998 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 15.01.19 {L/395/1}; • Extracts from the Blue Book which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 27.01.17 (Exhibit CG39/7-60); and • Payments to LRI dated 6 September 1998 which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 06.04.20 (Exhibit CG39/377). SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. This is a discrete further allegation relevant to the use of Severnside as well as the conduct of Ms Brooks and the truthfulness of evidence given to the Leveson Inquiry, and therefore relevant to the concealment allegations. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraph 183 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 5.7 and 5.8 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 13.18 no In particular, Senior Editors and journalists working for The Sun repeatedly and knowingly made false claims that there had voicemail been interception, blagging or unlawful obtaining of information through the use of PIs, as set out above. Further, as set out in paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 above, NGN withheld relevant document and information they were required to provide to the Leveson Inquiry pursuant to the section 21 Notice of August 2011 and thereby misled the Leveson Inquiry and the public. that Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Too generalized to add anything to the claim. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. New attempt to allege knowledge on the part of the legal department is too late and too unspecific.. in 13.19 The Claimants contend that it can be inferred, given the extent of the use of PIs by The Sun, the number of and complaints that were as by (such made Heather Mills in relation to a flight blag in 2008), Legal that the the Department, course of reviewing articles for legal issues and otherwise, turned a blind eye to this activity. In December 2014 Nick Parker, a senior Sun journalist, was convicted of handling a stolen mobile phone. However, in February 2015, Mr Parker was welcomed back to The Sun by NGN where he works to this senior day, despite at NGN executives having stated publicly that they and Company 13.20 In support of this paragraph, paragraph 184 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • An email from Nick Parker to Graham Dudman which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 03.07.19 {V/515}; • An article published in The Sun on 21.03.08 {HFM/60}; SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation refers • 35th Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith dated 26.09.23 {F/421/34/37}, which to documents disclosed in Ms Mills' claim which settled on 28.09.19 and a draft email from Nick Parker which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 24.02.17 {K/141}. turn in In support of this paragraph, paragraph 185 of Galbraith 39 refers to: SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY • The certificate of conviction of Nicholas Parker dated 09.12.14 and disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 09.10.18 {Z/2380.5} {P/646}; • Witness Statement of James Murdoch to the Leveson Inquiry, dated 16.04.12 {Z/2170/25} {J/2.629}; and A Press Gazette article entitled "Sun chief foreign correspondent Nick Parker returns to work six weeks after conviction for 'handling' MP's stolen phone" by Dominic THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N (in relation to Mr Dinsmore, Sun Editor) Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere 490. Poor/inappropriate Poor pleading: Drafting Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Permission granted. Relevant to extent of unlawful activity and knowledge of NGN. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) have "zero tolerance" for criminal conduct among their journalists Ponsford dated 20.02.15 (Exhibit CG/371- 376). SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY 491. 492. Permission granted THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N (in relation to News UK senior executives) 493. 494. Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 184-185 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents in paragraphs 13.19 and 13.20 above. 13.21 Based on these facts, the therefore of Claimants contend that: (a) NGN were (and continue to be) aware (i) of Mr Parker's prolific use private investigators to obtain information, unlawful (ii) unlawfully accessing stolen or lost mobile phones was routine at The Sun and that Mr Parker was involved in that activity; that 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted Permission refused. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 13.21 13.21 (b) NGN were wholly unchastened by the police investigations of and prosecutions and 2011-2015, insincere about their claim to clamp down on illegality; and (c) this culture of impunity comes from Rupert Murdoch, who was a recorded meeting of Sun staff in facing prosecution 2012 stating that he was hostile to the authorities investigating and prosecuting journalists. at 1. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N (in relation to News UK senior executives) SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N (in relation to News UK senior executives) Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Unnecessary: Public Inquiry Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate /Satellite Litigation/Wasted Costs Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection RM’s knowledge specifically) Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs stated purposes Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Unnecessary: Public Inquiry Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate 13.21 A activity Unlawful intended to further the commercial or political aims of News Corp/NI The Claimants contend that News Corp/NI sought target to Members of Parliament and other public figures who were perceived as a barrier to News Corp/NI unlawful through gathering information and intrusive surveillance, in order to their achieve commercial or political aims. In support of this In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 186-187 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • The CSPoCs of: SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE • Evan Harris dated 11.12.20 (Exhibit CG39/430- 446); • Chris Huhne dated 19.04.22 (Exhibit CG39/451-483); • Lord Tom Watson dated 10.03.23 (Exhibit CG39/378-394); • Paul Farrelly dated 20.04.23 (Exhibit CG39/396-425); • Norman Lamb dated 07.05.22; and • Vince Cable dated 03.03.23 (Exhibit CG/104- 135), • Claimant specific disclosure in the claims of Evan Harris, Chris Huhne, Tom Watson and Norman Lamb in 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) For the reasons explained in the judgment, permission is refused for this entire section of the amendments in the Draft GENPOC (13.21A – 13.32) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) contention the Claimants rely on the following matters: 2020-2023; and • The 2nd Witness Statement of Tom dated 27.09.21 {D/120} Watson {D/121}. 495. Imperil trial/very late amendment Ready for Jan 2024 Trial 13.21 B Targeting Committee members Select 2009, In September executives on the News Desk of the News of the World (including James Mazher Mellor, Mahmood Ian Edmondson), a commissioned investigator, private Derek Webb, to investigate, and obtain and 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 186-187 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in paragraph 13.21A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs stated purposes Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Unnecessary: Public Inquiry Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate 496. Imperil trial/very late amendment Ready for Jan 2024 Trial As above s/a private information about, Tom Watson MP. 13.22 These journalists were instructed to target Mr Watson by senior figures within News Corp/NI who were concerned about the exposure of NGN's wrongdoing by Mr Watson MP, in his role as a influential the CMS member of Select Committee, which was at that time conducting an inquiry into the activities of NI, and seeking to bring Ms Brooks to give evidence. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 186-187 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in paragraph 13.21A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Given its importance, it is to be inferred that Ms Brooks, James Murdoch and/or Rupert Murdoch were the instigators of the instruction. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 186-187 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in paragraph 13.21A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a also their 13.23 The Claimants contend that Select CMS Committee members targeted were voicemail through interception, at times inquiries when the impacted commercial, reputational or political aims of News Corp. In this support contention, the Claimants rely on the high number of calls, during their time on the CMS Select Committee, to the mobile phones of of 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) certain MPs from the NI hub line (all or most of which are considered inexplicable by the MPs concerned) relative to the number of explicable calls from the mobile phones of journalists on the Politics or Whitehall Desks NGN's on newspapers. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 186-187 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in paragraph 13.21A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above s/a of and 13.24 The Claimants further contend this activity was carried out to obtain confidential information private about the the deliberations Committee, to attempt obtain to compromising its information members to deter them from investigating the liability News of Corp/NI and its senior Executives as Rupert Murdoch, James (such on 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Murdoch Brooks). and Ms 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 13.25 The targeting of Chris Huhne and Evan Harris: This paragraph refers to various articles published in The Guardian: up by taken When The Guardian published its first set of articles on 8 and 9 July 2009, suggesting that the One Rogue Report Narrative was false, it in was two Parliament members of the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs team. Dr Evan Harris MP asked an Urgent Question of the Home Secretary on 9 July Liberal 2009. The Shadow Democrat Home Secretary, Chris Huhne MP, expressed his an investigation into phone hacking at NGN's newspapers, and wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian on Tuesday 14 July 2009 which called for the re-opening of the support for • "Trail of hacking and deceit under nose of Tory PR chief" published on 08.07.09; • "Press and privacy: Secret spies" published on 09.07.09; and • "Fresh questions for the News of the World" published on 14.07.09 (written by settled claimant Chris Huhne). In support of this paragraph, paragraph 188 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • The CSPoCs of Evan Harris (dated 11.12.20) (Exhibit CG39/430-446) and Chris Huhne (dated 19.04.22) (Exhibit CG39/451-483); • Claimant specific disclosure in the claims of Evan Harris and Chris Huhne in 2020-2023; • 4 ZC SAP entries disclosed in the (Exhibit 31.07.20 MTVIL CG39/450); and on • An extract from the Blue Book allegedly relating to Evan Harris disclosed in the MTVIL on 27.01.17. 1. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims s/a Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs stated purposes Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Unnecessary: Public Inquiry Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate 497. Imperil trial/very late amendment Ready for Jan 2024 Trial High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) MPS investigation that had been closed after the convictions of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman in 2007. The Claimants contend that NGN decided to target Dr Harris and Mr Huhne, both of whom have brought and settled claims in the MTVIL. 13.26 In support of the above contention, the Claimants will rely upon: In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 188 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.25 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE (a) the pattern of call data to the mobile phones of: As above s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 13.26 13.26 13.26 1. i. Dr Harris who received 351 hub between calls August 2005 and December 2010, and only 5 calls journalist's from mobile phones, and ii. Mr Huhne who received 218 hub calls between February 2006 and December 2011, and only 5 calls from journalist's mobile phones, (b) An email sent in response to a story in The Guardian stating that Mr Huhne was tabling a of series parliamentary questions on phone-hacking affair demanding judicial and a inquiry, the This paragraph to call data refers disclosure disclosed in Evan Harris's claim on 21.10.20. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 188 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.25 above. This paragraph to call data refers disclosure disclosed in Evan Harris's claim on 21.10.20. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 188 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.25 above. This paragraph refers to an email which was disclosed in the claim of Chris Huhne on 23.06.23. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 188 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 13.25 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) sent on 24 February from Fred (News Michel Corps Director of to Public Affairs) Colin Myler (the News of the World Editor) stating "Very damaging for Andy. We need to get Chris Huhne", and to which Mr Myler responded (on the same day) "Totally" 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) In support of this paragraph, paragraph 188 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 13.25 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 13.26 (c) the resultant an renewal of that investigation had previously taken place into Mr Huhne's private life by the News Desk of the News of the World in May 2009, but which was not considered worthy of publication. After had Mr Huhne for police called action The Guardian's and allegations, after he had entered the Cabinet in the Coalition Government the influence Government policy on the matter), NGN launched a new investigation using private multiple (with to ability on 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) investigators, targeting him and Carina Trimingham (who was tailed for days by a private investigator working for Neville Thurlbeck). In support of this paragraph, paragraph 188 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 13.25 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 13.27 The Claimants infer that these activities were a expedition fishing find to designed damaging private details about these MPs which to could to discredit blackmail them, and/or in the case of Mr Huhne, an attempt to destroy his political career. used them or be 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 13.28 The targeting of Vince Cable MP and Norman Lamb MP: the In June 2010, News Corps launched its bid to remaining buy shares in BSkyB and Vince Cable MP was the cabinet minister responsible for handling the regulatory consequences. Norman Lamb MP was the chief of staff to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, and was considered by News Corp to be a key figure in the "politics" of the bid, along with Mr Clegg himself. All three parliamentarians were the considered Murdoch as, News Corp directors, as being hostile to the bid. by family In support of this paragraph, paragraph 189 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • The CSPoCs of Sir Vince Cable dated 03.03.23 (Exhibit CG39/104- 133) and Sir Norman Lamb and 16.03.22 (Exhibit CG39/503-533); and • Call data in relation to Sir Vince Cable and Sir Norman Lamb disclosed in the claim of Dr Evan Harris on 11.06.21. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs stated purposes Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Unnecessary: Public Inquiry Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate 498. Imperil trial/very late amendment Ready for Jan 2024 Trial 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 189 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 13.28 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 13.29 The Claimants contend that News Corp used VMI (and UIG) to obtain information about sensitive private and discussions that may have been being held between Mr Cable and his advisers, and Mr Clegg and his advisers, and will rely in support of this contention on: (a) the data call showing hundreds of calls from the to Mr NGN hub and Mr Cable mobile Lamb's phones (for none of which Mr Cable or Mr can Lamb identify an innocent explanation), and specifically; 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This paragraph refers to the call data listed at paragraph 13.28 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 189 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.28 above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence This paragraph refers to the call data listed at paragraph 13.28 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 189 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.28 above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 13.29 13.29 (i) the 14 calls to Mr Cable's mobile phone in June 2010, 9 before 15 June when News Corp's intention to buy the was shares announced, and 5 afterwards; 7 calls in July 2010; 4 in September 2010; (ii) a call of 46 seconds duration, at 2:47pm on 4 November 2010, the day after News Corp formally asked the European Union to approve its proposed takeover and the same day the Claimant that an issued intervention notice under section 67 of the Enterprise Act 2002, referring the takeover to Ofcom to consider bid 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) issues of media plurality. There was a further call on 22 November 2010. 13.29 (iii) the four hub calls to the Mr Cable's mobile in December 2010 (three on 10 December, and one on 23 December). Mr Cable was secretly recorded in his constituency surgery by the Daily on Telegraph around December 2010, and the BBC broke the story leaked to them by Will Lewis and Jim Robinson on 21 December This paragraph refers to the call data listed at paragraph 13.28 above. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 189 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.28 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 499. As above s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 2010 (as referred to at paragraphs 6(d) and 37 above). (iv) the 5 calls to the Mr Lamb's mobile in June 2010, around the time he first met with Fred Michel, who told him of News Corp's intention to buy the shares; (v) the five calls to Mr Lamb's mobile in October around the time that he held a second meeting with Fred Michel, whereby threats were made by Mr Michel 13.29 13.29 1. 500. As above 501. As above This paragraph refers to the call data listed at paragraph 13.28 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 189 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.28 above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence This paragraph refers to the call data listed at paragraph 13.28 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 189 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.28 above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) regarding the potential impact on the coverage of Liberal Democrats by News International should an adverse decision be made in respect of News the Corp/BSkyB bid; 2010, 13.30 Furthermore, in Autumn Daily the Telegraph, which Mr Lewis had edited until covertly July recorded Liberal Democrat Ministers in their local constituency surgeries and ran a series of about they had unflattering these private in said conversations about their Coalition partners. The Telegraph, which to Mr was opposed Murdoch's bid to acquire the BSkyB shares, had stories In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 189 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 13.28 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Will Lewis is NGN Witness Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs stated purposes Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Unnecessary: Public Inquiry Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) recordings of Mr Cable's private conversations, but had not published them. to 13.31 The Claimants contend that, after leaving the Telegraph for News International, Mr Lewis obtained the recordings by improper payments or inducements Jim Robinson, an employee of the Daily Telegraph IT and department, leaked Mr Cable's private comments about Rupert Murdoch ("I am at war with the Murdochs") through his life- long friend, Robert Peston at the BBC, who them. This published 1. 502. Imperil trial/very late amendment Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Delay As above s/a This paragraph appears to refer to an article titled, "What Vince Cable said about Rupert Murdoch and BSkyB" which was published by the BBC on 21.12.10 (see pages 2-3 of Exhibit CF4). In support of this paragraph, paragraph 189 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 13.28 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Will Lewis is NGN Witness High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) had, from Mr Murdoch's perspective, the desired and expected outcome of the regulatory handling of the BSkyB bid being removed from Mr Cable by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and given to the Culture Secretary, the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt PM, who was seen by the Murdoch family as News Corp directors to be more sympathetic to News Corp's bid. much 13.32 Mr Robinson was join Mr promoted to Cheesbrough's technology team at NI the Claimants which infer was as a reward for obtaining the recording from the Telegraph's IT system. 15.6A 503. 14. From at least 2008 December onwards, NGN was 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 189 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 13.28 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N This paragraph references an article titled "Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Drafting amendment Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Permission granted High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Beyond" published in the New York Times on 01.09.10 {Z/1548} {P/5}. under (and was well aware that it was under) to legal obligation a preserve all documents or evidence relevant to allegations of voicemail interception or related information unlawful gathering activities because of civil claims or proceedings arising out of the wrongdoing of Glenn Mulcaire and/or NGN journalists. 504. 15 The Claimants will refer by way of example to the following: 505. …. the New York Times article in September 2010. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 190-196 of Galbraith 39 refer to: SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) • A briefing note sent by Wayne Harknett to Mark Ponting which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 28.07.17 {Z/1782} {O/83}; • A letter from Burton Copeland to MPS which was disclosed in the MTVIL by 13.01.17 {R/3}; • An email from Service Desk to Kranti Bhushan Niranajhan and others which was disclosed the MTVIL on 17.07.17 {Z/1788} {J/2.386}; in • Witness Statement of Jassal Vivek (S898A) which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 28.07.17 {Z/2335/59-61} {O/68}; • Agreed Facts – Criminal Proceedings which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 28.07.17 {Z/2619/40} {O/226}; and • An email from Paul Cheesbrough to Jones which was Byron Lloyd- disclosed in the MTVIL on 12.08.20 {Z/1805.1} {J/2.3158}. 15A On 11 February 2011, nearly three weeks after the commencement of Operation Weeting and two days after a meeting with the MPS on 9 February 2011 to discuss the scope of electronic data for available searching as part of Weeting Operation (paragraphs 15.12 above and 17.6 below is repeated), NGN deleted emails from the 2003 in Exchange Server the Wapping those mailboxes users who had been moved the 2010 Exchange system. Those users were mainly senior executives and IT staff and included all of those involved in the process of email deletion and hardware destruction such as Rebekah Brooks, Jon Lewis, Will from of to 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. This paragraph is further particulars of an allegation of destruction of emails that is already pleaded, and in relation to which NGN has already served generic witness statements. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Paul Chapman, Cheesbrough, Xen Lategan, Gareth Wright, Hank Hassan and Nigel Wilson. The Claimants infer this was to prevent the MPS finding any potentially damaging emails on that server in the course of their investigation, and contend this part of the wider deletion plan devised by Mr Mr Lewis, and Ms Cheesbrough Brooks in January 2011, and for which "cover" was given by the fake email security threat invented on 24 January 2011. 15B 1. This paragraph appears to refer to an email between Mr Lewis, Mr Cheesbrough and Ms Brooks which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 12.08.20 {Z/1744.6} {J/2.3087}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 190-196 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 15A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 1. Despite its full knowledge of these civil claims, the into investigation MPS Operation Weeting, and the clear obligation to preserve documents, NGN deliberately chose through its Senior Employees to destroy or permit the destruction of and/or hid and suppressed substantial amounts of highly material evidence (see, in relation to hiding and suppressing of evidence, particular in paragraphs 5.6, 5.6.5, 5.7, 9.7, 13.16 and 37). This the was done with deliberate of concealing facts relevant to Claimants' and potential Claimants' rights of action and in circumstances in which it was unlikely to be discovered and preventing from having Claimants sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries to bring a claim, at least for some in time. As intention set out In support of this paragraph, paragraph 197 of Galbraith 39 relies on "developments in case law as to the legal test applied when bringing a claim outside of the usual limitation period". As set out in Galbraith Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes (not generic issue) No objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Pleading connection between the concealment and its impact on the claimants and alleged intention of NGN in the alleged destruction.. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) orders paragraph 37, through the process of such litigation and as a result of obtaining disclose the Claimants have managed to uncover that are facts relevant to their rights of action. These include (but are not limited the existence of call data and the extensive use of PIs Private Investigators and blaggers both at the News of the World and at The Sun. to) 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE NEW WITNESS (Mr Elmes) THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Delay Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation/Wasted Costs 17A.1 The Claimants contend that: (a) the Wapping hard (paragraph drive is 17.1A.2 below having repeated), been removed, was sequestrated and/or destroyed by NGN in order to prevent material, the believed be to incriminating, becoming available to the MPS; and In support of 198-199 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • 20th Witness Statement this paragraph, paragraphs of Callum Galbraith dated 11.02.21{F/359}; • 1st Witness Statement of Darren Elmes dated 02.03.21 {D/102}; • Witness Statement of Paul Cheesbrough (S344A) available to the Claimants from at least 28.07.17 {Z/2173} {O/76}; • Witness Statement of Gareth Wright (S239) available to the Claimants from at least 16.11.16 {G/395}; • Witness Statement of Nigel Wilson (S238) available to the Claimants from at least 16.11.16 {G/397}; • Witness Statement of Ilhan Hassan (S225) available to the Claimants from at least 27.09.18 {G/385}; • Emails between Gareth Wright, Paul (Exhibit Cheesbrough and CG39/554-570) which was disclosed in the MTVIL by 07.06.21 {F/374/7}; others • Witness Statement of Paul Ovall available to the Claimants from at least 28.07.17 {Z/2600/20} {O/207}; and • Witness Statement of DI Barney Ratcliffe available to the Claimants from at least 17.09.18 {D/89}. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. The destruction of the hard drive and thereby concealment of the involvement of Ms Brooks is already pleaded and the parties have prepared previously to deal with it. This additional section is concerned with the alleged attempts of NGN to stymie the MPS investigation and is not therefore High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 17.1A .1 (b) Mr Cheesbrough, Gareth Wright, Nigel Wilson, Jim Robinson and Hank Hassan all gave the MPS false accounts in order to conceal what 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 198-199 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17A.1 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above NEW WITNESS (Mr Elmes) Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) related to any public denials or misleading accounts given in public. Whether NGN was honest in its dealings with the MPS is a collateral issue that would take substantial time and resources to investigate but does not relate sufficiently to the real issues in this trial. s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) taken had actually place, and instead place the blame on an innocent man, Darren Elmes. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) 17.1A .1 17.1A .2 1. (c) Will Lewis and Mr Cheesbrough sought to hide of evidence of what had taken place by refusing the MPS request to extract the emails of Mr Wilson, Mr Robinson and Mr Hanks so that they could be searched. relation this In contention, the Claimants rely upon the following: to In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 198-199 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17A.1 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a NEW WITNESS (Mr Elmes) THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 198-199 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17A.1 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 506. 507. s/a NEW WITNESS (Mr Elmes) THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere (a) On 28 January 2011, Brooks' Ms Wapping computer, which was still in situ in her old office, was – along with other seven old executives' taken computers – High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 17.1A .2 and placed in a secure storage room by Darren Elmes (an IT contractor working for NI) on the instruction of Gareth Wright (NI Head of Enterprise Operations) which was in turn on the instruction of Mr Cheesbrough. (f) In May 2011, Mr Elmes carried out an audit of the assets in the storage room and discovered that the drive was hard from Ms missing Brooks' computer chassis, which he reported to Mr Wright who in turn passed this information without comment to Mr Cheesbrough. Mr Elmes had no further involvement with the hard drive or chassis, and at no point took a In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 198-199 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17A.1 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence s/a NEW WITNESS (Mr Elmes) Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) hard drive to Mr Cheesbrough's office or elsewhere. 17.1A .2 (c) In July 2011, Mr to Cheesbrough provided the MPS with a hard drive that he said was from Ms Brooks' Wapping computer. However, the hard drive that was given the police was "bitlocker encrypted", a form of encryption which default was a of characteristic computers at Thomas More Square but not Wapping, and, therefore, this hard drive was not from Ms Brooks' Wapping computer. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 198-199 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17A.1 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE NEW WITNESS (Mr Elmes) Poor/inappropriate/Po or Pleading: Evidence s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 198-199 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17A.1 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE NEW WITNESS (Mr Elmes) Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) 17.1A .2 to (g) When the MPS raised this with NI, Mr Cheesbrough created a false timeline of events which implicated Mr Elmes and removing in "switching" the hard drive prior to it being given Mr Cheesbrough. In this he was assisted by Mr Wright, Nigel Wilson of (the Head IT Executive Jim Support) and Robinson. Mr Robinson had been the recruited Telegraph by Will Lewis, following the leak of Vince Cable's "I am at war with the Murdochs" conversation from the Telegraph to Robert Peston at the BBC (see paragraph 13.31 above), and had taken from Hank over from 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Hassan as Head of Desktop Services, and as Mr Elmes' manager. Mr Cheesbrough and Mr Robinson directed the towards Mr MPS Elmes as a suspect by suggesting he was a disgruntled employee who had motive to steal the hard drive. As a result, Mr Elmes' residence was raided by the MPS. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 198-199 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17A.1 above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 508. NEW WITNESS (Mr Elmes) Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere 17.1A .2 (h) According to Mr on of Cheesbrough's subsequent account, and that of Mr Wright, he had asked Mr Wright (on the the phone evening January 2011, but not in the relevant contemporaneous giving email instructions) to remove Ms Brooks' drive hard and deliver to his it office. Mr Wright's includes account that he arranged for this to be done via Hank Hassan, on that evening and that Mr had Elmes passed it to Nigel Wilson to give to Mr Cheesbrough. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 198-199 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17A.1 above. 509. 510. 511. 512. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere 17.1A .2 (i) The account of Mr Hassan, who was Mr manager, Elmes' was that he (Hassan) had the removed hard drive in Ms Brooks' office and given it to Mr Elmes to Mr to give Cheesbrough but that this event took place in 2010, not late January 2011. The account of Mr Wilson is that he spoke to Mr Hassan and Mr Elmes on an occasion when Mr Hassan told Mr Elmes to remove the hard drive and give it to Mr Wilson, and that this was duly done. However, he he stated took thought place in April 2011. that it 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to an article titled "Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Beyond" published in the New York Times on 01.09.10. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 198-199 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17A.1 above. Drafting amendment This is dealt with in §§170-174 of Galbraith 39, not §§198-9 Unnecessary: Otiose Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere 17.4 on received Further, in light of the New York Times article (published September 2010) and having the Sienna Miller letter of claim dated 6 September 2010. Ms Brooks and/or Senior NGN other Employees (the identities of which will be provided following disclosure) stepped up attempts to push through the Email Deletion Policy, notwithstanding the the fact to company's move Thomas Moore Square, which was the ostensible excuse for the email deletion, was not yet ready to take place. that 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 17.7 (ff) The emails referred to in paragraph (f) above that were not deleted were transferred onto a laptop ("the extraction laptop") and given to Paul Cheesborough. These emails were subject to further deletion, by Paul Cheesborough, Xen Lategan and others, the exact details of which are currently unknown to the Claimants, but which purportedly involved using so-called 'criteria' set out in the emails of Jon Chapman in October 2010 and Will Lewis in January 2011. This was carried out between 14 January 2011 and 7 February 2011 when the iOmega hard-drive (onto which the surviving data from the extraction laptop was transferred) was handed over to Stroz Friedberg. This paragraph appears to refer to emails which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 22.12.17 {Z/1610} {J/2.659} and by August 2017 {Z/1668} {N/816}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 200-203 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • Paul Cheesbrough's 1st MPS statement (S344) which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 28.07.17 {O/26}; SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 513. 514. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples • Email from Paul Cheesbrough to Beverley Hossac, Xen Lategan and Chris Birch which was disclosed in the {Z/1664.7} 26.04.19 MTVIL on {J/2.2009}; • Email from John Morris to Xen Lategan and Chris Birch which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 03.08.17 {Z/1687} {J/2.454}; • Email from Paul Cheesbrough to Xen Lategan which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 15.01.21 {Z/1779.03} {J/2.3312}; • Letter from Clifford Chance to Hamlins (second letter) dated 16.06.21 {T/1479}; and • Email from James Murdoch to Colin the Myler which was disclosed in No Objection Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Delay 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Further particulars of allegation already pleaded. Additional person named in the allegations on basis of 2021 disclosure. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/1312.1/3} {J/2.182}. In July 2011, this hard drive found, was together with another laptop, during an MPS search in a floor safe hidden under a vanity unit in the annexe to Rebekah Brooks' office. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 200-203 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17.7(ff) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) 17.7 (ga) The Claimants infer that the emails deleted from accounts would these have emails included dated after 2007, and that these otherwise would have survived the later batch deletions covering all emails from the years 2005-6 (on 26 January 2011), and 2007 (on 8 2011). The February that Claimants contend NI/NGN were able therefore to delete further incriminating emails from 2008 onwards, as part of the plan devised by Will Lewis, Rebekah Brooks and Paul Cheesbrough. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Further particulars of same allegation of destruction of emails. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) Limitation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation/Wasted Costs Delay Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims 17.7 (kA) around The Claimants further contend that Will Lewis, Paul Cheesbrough and Rebekah Brooks (and it is the inferred with knowledge and approval of James and Rupert Murdoch as is set out in paragraph 19 below) fabricated an elaborate "security email data threat" the activities of the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown MP, and Tom Watson MP, that was then used a basis for widespread deletions of emails and hardware in particular the removal of most other staff with "admin" clearance to the email system, deletion of the tapes, sequestrate the emails downloaded by Nigel Wilson from Ms Brooks' Thomas More Square the computer, secure, back-up In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 204-207 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • An email from Paul Cheesbrough to Rebekah Brooks and Will Lewis which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 12.08.20 {Z/1744.6} {J/2.3087}; • The Agreed Facts – Criminal Proceedings available to the Claimants from at least 28.07.17 {Z/2619/40}{O/226}; • The minutes of meeting between officers from the MPS, Paul Cheesbrough and Will Lewis which was disclosed in the MTVIL 17.07.17 on {Z/1941}{J/2.428}; • The 2nd Witness Statement of Tom Watson dated 27.09.21 {D/120}; • Exhibit "TW2" the 2nd Witness to Statement of Tom Watson Claimants dated 27.09.21 {D/121}; • Email from Paul Cheesbrough to Martin Baldock and Will Lewis which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 30.06.17 {Z/1784} {J/2.333}; • Email from Martin Baldock to Paul Cheesbrough and others which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 30.06.17 {Z/1785} {J/2.383}; • Attachment to Email from Martin Baldock to Paul Cheesbrough and others which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 17.07.17 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. This is just a narrative summary of the matters already pleaded in the following paragraph, but adding into it some high profile names. The new paragraph is unnecessary for C to pursue the allegations in para 17.7(l). High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) sequestration and later destruction of the hard drive from Ms Brooks' old Wapping computer, delete all the emails on the 2003 Exchange Server, and proceed with the batch deletions on 29 January 2011 and 7 February 2011. The Claimants rely on the following and matters: facts {Z/1786} {J/2.384}; • Email from Simon Greenberg to Paul in Cheesbrough which was disclosed the MTVIL on 22.12.17 {Z/1792} {J/2.634}; • Email from Jon Chapman to Will Lewis which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 22.12.17 {Z/1794} {J/2.639}; and • Email from Byron Lloyd-Jones to Paul Cheesebrough and Martin Baldock which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 29.05.20 {Z/1809.2} {J/2.3033}. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Unnecessary: email already pleaded. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to an email which was previously referenced in the RAGPCD served on 16.06.20. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 204-207 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17.7(kA) above. 17.7 (l) On 24 January 2011 Paul Cheesbrough sent an email to Rebekah Brooks, copying in Will Lewis, with an 'security alleged also threat'. NGN alleges further a security threat which is said to have been reported orally. These are relied upon by NGN as justification for (inter alia) wiping the back-up tapes and the creation of the 'extraction laptop'. The Claimants' case is that neither security threat was genuine and these were devised as part of the 'cover-up'. By way illustration when of Cheesbrough Paul Martin instructed Stoz Baldock Friedberg to investigate the alleged security by email of 11 February threat of 1. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 515. 516. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) 517. 518. 519. 520. 521. 522. 523. 524. Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 2011, Mr Cheesbrough forwarded the email to Greenberg, Simon receiving the reply 10 minutes later "let the game begin". The Claimants rely on the full and contents context of the email dated 24 January 2011. (m) It is not credible that any of Ms Brooks' emails from the late 1990s (which the email stated were being sought by the alleged threatener) would have been accessible because Ms Brooks was not on archive system; the 17.7 1. This paragraph refers to an email which was previously referenced in the RAGPCD served on 16.06.20. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 204-207 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17.7(kA) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. New allegation that Ms Brooks was not on the archive system needs to be pleaded if to be pursued. No prejudice to NGN in Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) answering this allegation. Permission granted. New facts relating to same issue as is already pleaded. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 204-207 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17.7(kA) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 525. Irrelevant: relevance stated purposes No to Cs’ THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims 17.7 (n) It was only on 11 February 2011, nearly 3 weeks after the alleged security NGN threat, requested a forensic examination by Stroz Friedberg in order to justify the threat security which was itself undertaken without the involving Information Security Officer Chris Williams. The investigation was limited, did not appear to conclude with any report and the alleged security threat was not proven; and 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 204-207 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 17.7(kA) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 526. 527. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere 17.7 (o) Neither Mr Lewis, Mr Greenberg, Mr Chapman nor Mr Cheesbrough informed the MPS that any emails had been deleted or that there was a security threat until Mr Cheesbrough was confronted by the MPS in a meeting on 8 July 2011, after had the MPS already discovered that there had been deletions carried out by NGN. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused: collateral issue about what senior executives of NGN told the MPS. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation In support of this section, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • The reference terms of (Exhibit CG39/571-572) which was available to the Claimants from at least 31.10.13 (see pages 17-18 of Exhibit CG39); • A Channel 4 Greenberg on CG39/736-738); interview with Mr (Exhibit 05.07.11 • A message from James Murdoch in a news bulletin dated 15.07.11; • An email from Cheryl Carter to Rebekah Brooks dated 20.06.11 at 16:19 which was disclosed in the MTVIL by August 2017 {Z/1873/25} {N/849}; • The MSC Statement (Attachment to tab J/2.3239) which was available to the Claimants from at least 12.08.20 {Z/2053.5} {J/2.3240}; and • The 25th Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith which was prepared by the Claimants and served on 07.07.21 {F/376}. 18A The role of the MSC in Concealment and the Destruction and knowledge of Rupert Murdoch In or before June 2011, the Management and Standards Committee was ("MSC") all established, with three of its members being News Corp and NI executives, namely: News Corp's General Counsel for Europe and Asia (Jeff Palker), and NI Executives Will (NI General Lewis Manager) and Simon Greenberg (Director of Corporate Affairs). Mr Palker was later replaced in February 2012 by Gerson Zweifach, News Corp's Chief General These Counsel). appointments were made by Rupert Murdoch, in 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) For the reasons explained in the judgment, permission is refused for paras 18A- 18K inclusive, which amount to a new case in relation to the conduct of the MSC and the knowledge of Mr Rupert Murdoch (but without prejudice to any of the individual facts and allegations if they are pleaded elsewhere in the GENPOC). The fact that High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection his role as Executive Chairman of News Formal Corporation. Terms of Reference (ToR) were published on 21 July 2011 which having included oversight of, and taking responsibility for, all matters in relation to the News of the World phone case, police hacking payments investigation and all other connected issues at NI including enquiries, the police civil proceedings, Parliamentary proceedings, the Leveson Inquiry and the PCC. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) certain claimants have inappropriately pleaded such allegations at considerable length in their Reply, as part of their claimant- specific case about their knowledge and what they could with reasonable diligence have discovered for the purpose of s.32 Limitation Act, does not mean that these allegations should be accepted as High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) generic issues for trial in January 2025. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry This paragraph refers to: • A Simon Greenberg interview with Channel 4 News on 05.07.11 (Exhibit CG39/736-738); and • A statement from Rupert Murdoch which was published on 06.07.11. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. 18B in Prior to her resignation on 15 July 2011, the MSC was stated by Ms Brooks to be acting under her instructions. This was confirmed by MSC member Simon Greenberg an interview with Channel Four News on 5 July 2011, in which he stated that Ms Brooks had been heading the investigation by NI since January and would continue to do so. This was re-iterated on 6 July Rupert by Murdoch. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This paragraph refers to a message from James Murdoch in a news bulletin dated 15.07.11. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry 18C On 15 July 2011, James Murdoch made clear in a the news bulletin on website news.co.uk that the MSC had direct governance and from News oversight Corp's Board members. Rupert Murdoch and the News Board Corp (which included his sons James Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch) appointed the members of the MSC. Given its critical importance, it is to be inferred that these members of the News Corp Board were aware of the deletion strategy and activity of Mr Lewis and Mr Greenberg. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph appears to refer to the "company-wide document hold" referred to in NGN's disclosure email which has been referred to in NGN's Disclosure Certificates from at least as early as 2019. See for example, the Disclosure Certificate in Noel Fielding v NGN dated 17.12.19 at {F/301/85-87}. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. 18D Notably, the MSC was given responsibility by Rupert Murdoch and the News Corp Board for co- ensuring "full operation with all relevant investigations" and to "preserve, obtain and disclose appropriate documents". The first company-wide "document hold" was sent by Mr Lewis, Mr and Mr Greenberg Parker, only on 23 July 2011, six months after the start of Operation Weeting. The Claimants will contend that in fact Mr Lewis and Mr Greenberg had already for several months been key parties to the scheme to destroy amongst other things as much of the historic Company's electronic as possible, and were empowered as executive data 1. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation 528. 529. 530. 531. 532. 533. 534. 535. 536. See 11.53A (JM) and 13.5.3 (RM) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection members of the MSC to complete this task, and to conceal what had taken place. It is inferred that they would not have been carrying out this extensive concealment and destruction strategy without the knowledge and approval of Rupert James Murdoch Murdoch. and The MSC was promoted to the MPS as a body with which they could share confidential details inquiries, about which act honestly and in good would their 18E 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Unnecessary: Otiose Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 18F faith, which would co- operate in providing the MPS with necessary documents (so that a production order would not be necessary) and which would preserve evidence. The Claimants contend that the MSC, through its UK-based Executive Members (namely Will Lewis, Simon Greenberg) deliberately failed to fulfil its stated commitment co- operate with the MPS and participated in the strategy of concealing or destroying evidence. In this support the contention, Claimants rely on the following and matters: facts of to In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation 537. 538. 539. 540. As above 541. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence (a) The conduct of Mr Lewis prior to the initial creation of 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) the MSC in relation to the destruction of from evidence, inferences which can drawn, be including: 18F (i) email deletion in September/Octob er 2010 (see paragraph 17.4), 18F (ii) account deletion in mid-January 2011 (see paragraph 11.61J), 542. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Delay In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) As above s/a 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 18F 18F 1. (iii) batch deletions after Operation Weeting had been established: (1) of 2005 emails on 26-28 January (see paragraph 17.7(b) above and 19) and 2006-7 (2) on emails 2011, February (see paragraph 17.7(b) above below); and of (iv) the and false incomplete evidence given in his witness statement in the MTVIL of 21 December set out at (as paragraph below) in relation to these matters; In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) This paragraph refers the Witness Statement of William Lewis in the MTVIL dated 21.12.11 {F/9}. to In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) As above s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 18F 18F 18F 1. (v) the and false incomplete information given in his disclosure statements (as set out at paragraph 19 below); (vi) the laying of the false trail on 24 January 2011 in the Gordon Brown email security threat email (and consequent the pointless investigation by Stroz) as set out at paragraph 17.7A et seq above; (vii) his involvement in and/or knowledge the actions, of taken by Mr Cheesbrough, and to others the sequestrate emails of Ms Brooks from her In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) As above s/a This paragraph appears to refer an email between Mr Lewis, Mr Cheesbrough and Ms Brooks which was disclosed in the MTVIL {Z/1744.6} {J/2.3087}. 12.08.20 on In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) pst files at Thomas More Square (see paragraph 11.61I) and her Wapping hard drive (see paragraph 17.1A.1) (viii) the failure to tell the MPS prior to 8 July 2011 that (1) any emails had been deleted in September/Octob er 2010, (2) that those from 2005-7 had been deleted between and 8 January February (see paragraph 19 below); (ix) the failure to tell the MPS prior to 8 July 2011 that the email accounts of had executives deleted been between 18F 18F 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 543. Irrelevant: relevance stated purposes No to Cs’ s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) As above High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) January and 7 February 2011 by Mr Cheesbrough, and Xen Lategan (see paragraph 17.7(ff) above and paragraph below), and (4) the back tapes had scratched been paragraph (see 17.7J); (x) Mr Lewis's decision to take no action after Bill Akass told him (and others) on 14 January 2011 that Mr Thurlbeck had told him that he to wished to communicate Mr Myler, Mr Lewis or Ms Brooks what he had described as extremely damaging 18F 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) information about phone- hacking under the News of the World Editorship of Ms Brooks (see paragraph 11.59B(a),(b) and (c) above) and (xi) the theft of the recording of Vince Cable MP from the Daily Telegraph by Jim Robinson and himself in order to facilitate the BSkyB bid (see paragraph 13.31 above). (b) The conduct of Mr Lewis after his appointment to the MSC in June 2011, including 18F 18F 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 544. As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Unnecessary: Enough examples As above s/a As above s/a In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) 18F (i) his continuing failure to inform the MPS about the extent of the deletions, 18F (ii) his knowledge of and/or involvement in the activities to sequestrate destroy and/or Brooks' Ms hard Wapping drive to blame Darren Elmes (see paragraph 17.1A.1 above) and 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 18F (iii) his continued false allegations, to the relating alleged offer for of Mr sale email Brooks' data to Gordon Brown MP and Tom Watson the and MP, investigation thereof, the in meeting with the MPS on 8 July (see paragraph below); 18F (iv) the disappearance of 9 filing cabinets and pedestals derived from the office of the senior NGN and NotW executives after the MSC had the secured In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witnesses) Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Unnecessary: Enough examples sin contents of the office the Wapping archive paragraph below); (see 18F 1. This paragraph refers to the documents to paragraph considered relation 17.1A1(c) above, with concerns the activities of Mr Lewis and Mr Cheesbrough. in In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. (v) his refusal, along with Mr Cheesbrough, to the sanction extraction and search the emails of Nigel Wilson, Jim Robinson Hank and Hassan as requested by the (see MPS paragraph 17.1A1(c) above); and Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION (inc NGN witness, Mr Lewis) Irrelevant (NI): No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive (misleading Leveson is already pleaded) Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Delay Imperil trial/very late amendment This paragraph refers to paragraph 17.15A of the RRAGPCD which paragraph does not exist. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. 18F (vi) to the extent that the MSC was for responsible the conduct of News International at the Leveson Inquiry (including preparing witness statements and submitting in documents response to s21 the requests), provision of misleading to information the Leveson Inquiry, and the to be failure candid in correcting false evidence given NGN by employees and former 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection employees about NGN's activities (see paragraph 17.15A 13.15A). to the The Claimants further contend that Simon also Greenberg, appointed to the MSC from the outset, was party above activities and actions, from the point at which he was recruited by, or on the recommendation of, his long-time friend Will Lewis in January 2011, pending further disclosure, and in this rely on regard will matters herein, including 17.7A(a) paragraph 18G 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation/Disproportio nate Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) above. 18H Mr Greenberg's focus and approach was not on impartial an any investigation of allegations, or responding and independently responsibly to MPS requests for assistance, but rather to ensure that Ms Brooks, was assisted the in leading investigation and thereby avoid scrutiny. this support of In contention, the Claimants will rely on the following: i. when he was a member of the MSC on 5 July 2011, Mr 1. This paragraph refers to an interview provided by Mr Greenberg to Channel 4 News on 05.07.11. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed at paragraph 18A above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 545. As above s/a 546. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION 547. 548. 549. 550. 551. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Unnecessary: Enough examples High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) to Greenberg made clear publicly, in a Channel Four News interview, that the investigation which was taking place, and was supposed to be in the purview of the MPS, assisted by the MSC (which be claimed autonomous from NI), was in fact being led by the NI Chief Executive, Rebekah Brooks. This was despite the fact that she was one of those suspected of involvement in unlawful the the conduct, and fact that the Dowler allegations related to her time as Editor of the News of the World. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Unnecessary: Enough examples This paragraph refers to a letter from Burton Copeland to the MPS dated 20.06.11 and {Z/2363.2} disclosed {J/2.778}. 19.07.18 on 18H ii. NGN's from of legal BCL advisers Burton Copeland had written to the MPS, on 20 June two weeks 2011, before this interview, providing the MPS information with the derived the Review "Harbottle and emails Lewis" carried out by Lord Ken MacDonald, for of evidence and/or unlawful activity. criminal This review had identified evidence improper of payments to public in officials the period of Ms Brooks' Editorship of the News of the Mr World. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Greenberg would have been aware of this because he and Mr Lewis made a personal visit to the police on the same day to follow up the contents the letter. of 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 18I The MSC chose to continue the practice of buying the silence of those who might tell the senior truth about executive knowledge and encouragement of, and in, involvement interception voicemail and unlawful activities. In support of this the contention Claimants will rely on the following: other (a) Shortly after being for gross their and sacked misconduct following arrests impending prosecutions voicemail interception, Neville Thurlbeck, Ian Edmondson and James Weatherup employment filed the claims with for SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Delay Prejudice Unnecessary: Enough Examples 552. 553. 554. 555. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere This paragraph appears to refer to: • James Weatherup's Amended Details of Claim (Employment Tribunal Case No. 3203748/2011) dated 14.07.15 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.1/5} {J/2.3340}; • Ian Edmondson's Amended Grounds of Complaint (Employment Tribunal Case No. 3201361/2011 / 3202806/2011 and 3203748/2011) dated 15.07.15 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.2/2} {J/2.3341}; • Neville Thurlbeck's Amended Answer to / Statement of Case Question 5.2 (Neville Employment Tribunal case) dated 15.07.15 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.3/6} {J/2.3342}; and Thurlbeck's • The Settlement Agreements of James Weatherup, Neville Thurlbeck and Ian Edmondson which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 14.10.21 {Z/2379.1} {J/2.3928}/{Z/2379.2}{J/2.3929}/{Z/2 380.01} {J/2.3930}. The fact of the Employment Claims and related strike out applications has been in the 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) public domain from at least 2014 (see pages 19-27 of Exhibit CF4). employment tribunal arguing that been had they unfairly dismissed. The claims were stayed pending the the of outcome prosecutions. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere s/a (b) In the event, by 2015, all three had pleaded guilty and were sentenced to imprisonment or a suspended sentence, and at that point NI moved to strike out the claims as having no real prospect of success. 18I 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 18I 18I 18I 1. the (c) At this point, all three claimants their amended claims to allege the knowledge and encouragement of, and/or involvement in, senior executives in unlawful conduct, and in this regard Ms Brooks was explicitly identified in one of amended the particulars and impliedly identified in the other two. (d) Shortly after this the MSC elected to pay large six-figure sums to each of the three phone- convicted hackers. (e) Ms Brooks was re- appointed as Chief Executive of NI in June 2015 by Rupert and Murdoch, Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere s/a s/a Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection payments were made to settle the claims in September of that year. three The Claimants will invite the inference that the MSC made these payments at the behest of Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks because the threat of a public airing of the allegations from different individuals could result in further investigations by the police. The Claimants will rely upon of payment the substantial of which Mr money Murdoch approved in order to ensure that there judicial is determination of allegations of corporate knowledge encouragement or involvement in unlawful sums no 18J 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 209f of Galbraith 39 refers to: • The 25th Witness Statement of Callum the MTVIL, dated in Galbraith 08.07.21{F/379}; and • The documents outlined in relation to paragraph 18I above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation/Wasted Costs Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by RM’s knowledge specifically) Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment Poor/inappropriate pleading High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) thus or illegal activity beyond what far been identified (in relation to the convicted departmental heads and one editor, Mr Coulson). five 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) see also Please concerning paragraphs 11.53A – 11.53H, 13.8, and 13.21-4 in this regard. rows As above s/a SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 18K The Claimants will further infer that as the Executive Chairman of News Corporation, who appointed the members of the MSC and to whom reported, Rupert it Murdoch was aware of and the approved activities of Mr Lewis from September 2010 onwards, as well as: (a) the actions of the from 2011 MSC onwards, through the actions of Mr and Mr Lewis in Greenberg, frustrating the MPS inquiries into phone-hacking, and, through their role in leading NI's engagement with Leveson the and Inquiry in Parliament, false giving 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection (or information allowing they information knew to be wrong or false to be provided uncorrected) to the Inquiry, and to the CMS Select Committee Inquiry in 2011-2. 19. 1. in (2) Mr Hinton was also involved the with discussions Andy Coulson and Tom Crone over (a) the sentencing of Goodman, Clive the potential and his risks mitigation the effect that he was not only the journalist at The that to Please see also the row concerning 19(3C). Consequential or preparatory to subsequent amendments THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) (2A) Andy News of the World undertaking these would activities present for NGN, and (b) the risks posed to NGN of Glenn Mulcaire telling the truth to the authorities before or after his sentencing hearing. Coulson resigned from his position as Editor of The News of the World prior to the sentencing of Mr Goodman and Mr Mulcaire. Mr Hinton, on behalf of NGN, agreed to pay him 3 years' salary, ownership of his car, 3 years BUPA cover for family and his himself, and retention of his 19. 1. Please see also the row concerning 19(3C). Consequential or preparatory to subsequent amendments THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Permission granted. Additional allegation against Mr Hinton related to existing allegations, and based to some extent on documents disclosed in 2020, 2021. Delay Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation/Disproportio nate Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) for shares, unvested and the transfer/release of the value of his pension. It is to be inferred that this exceptionally substantial package, someone under resigning the circumstances he was did, provided so that Mr Hinton and NGN could ensure he would not disclose any of the he information the knew about extent of wrongdoing within NGN. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to oral evidence provided by Les Hinton to the CMS Select Committee on 06.03.07. Please see also the row concerning 19(3C). Consequential or preparatory to subsequent amendments THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes Delay 19. (2B) In evidence to the CMS Select Committee, on 6 March 2007, Mr Hinton when asked if he had conducted a full, rigorous internal inquiry gave an affirmative (and therefore, in light of the foregoing, misleading) answer; and gave a false assurance that Mr Goodman was acting wholly without authorisation and that Mr Coulson had no knowledge of what was going on. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. This and the following sub- paragraphs are a summary of the allegations of knowledge made in respect of Mr Hinton and do not raise new or complex issues. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection As above See paragraph 13.1A also (SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY) THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N This paragraph appears to refer to: • A letter from Clive Goodman to Daniel Cloke dated 14.03.07 which was disclosed on 08.08.11{Z/1267} {H/21}; and the MTVIL in • An email from Moray Laing to Tom Crone dated 27.03.07 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 03.02.17 {Z/1271} {J/2.54}. Please see also the row concerning 19(3C). 19. (2C) Mr Hinton was the that aware allegations against Mr Edmondson (that he knew about and was engaged in commissioning VMI) had been made independently by Mr Goodman, in his letter of 14 March 2007, and by Mr Mulcaire in Mr Laing's letter of 27 March 2007, yet and deliberately turned a blind eye and to this no conducted inquiry or investigation into the matter. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) Please see also the row concerning 19(3C). of Objection As above Consequential or preparatory to subsequent amendments THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 19. (3B) It is to be inferred on the basis of what he knew as set in out paragraphs 19(1), (2), (2B) and that Mr above, was Hinton for responsible terminating the HR disciplinary procedure into Ian Edmondson, as a the result allegations made by Glenn Mulcaire, which was being carried out by Ann Paul. of Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN 19. (3C) The Claimants contend that Mr Hinton's written to evidence the Select CMS Committee in 2009-10, and his oral evidence to the CMS Select Committee on 27 July 2009 and 24 October 2011, and written his evidence the to Parliamentary of Committee from Privileges 2012 to 2016, was, in the premises, misleading in respect of his knowledge of (a) phone hacking at the News of the from at World least 2004; (b) the truth of, and the nature the investigations Clive into, Goodman's and Glenn Mulcaire's allegations; (c) the the purpose of and Goodman of Permission granted. This paragraph appears to refer to: As above SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N • Mr Hinton's oral evidence to the CMS Select Committee on 15.09.09; • Mr Hinton's written evidence to the CMS Select Committee dated 2009 - 2010; • Mr Hinton's oral evidence the CMS Select Committee on 24.10.11; and to • Mr Hinton's written evidence to the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges dated 2012 - 2016. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 210-213 of Galbraith refer to: • A meeting note dated 21.03.07 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 17.10.11 {Z/2676/2} {H/370}; • Exhibits to the Witness Statement of DC Oliver Youngs dated 11.09.12, disclosed in the MTVIL on 25.06.20 and 13.07.20 {G/586} {G/590}; • A letter Ian from Ann Paul Edmondson dated 10.04.07 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/1273.1} {J/2.3329}; to • Notes of disciplinary meetings with Ian and dated Edmondson 26.04.07 which were disclosed in the MTVIL {Z/1273.3} 05.02.21 {J/2.3330} / {Z/1276.01} {J/2.3333}; 11.04.07 on • A letter Ian from Ann Paul Edmondson dated 12.04.07 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 to 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN {Z/1275.01} {J/2.3331}; and • Letters from Ann Paul to Edward Parladorio dated 13.04.07 which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/1275.02} {J/2.3332} / {Z/1275.04} {J/2.3920}. Mulcaire settlements; (d) the known falsity of the One Rogue Reporter Narrative; and (e) and the continued concealment by top executives of the true picture. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 214-220 of Galbraith 39 refer to James the Murdoch's Witness Statement Leveson Inquiry dated 16.04.12 {Z/2170} {J/2.629}. to See §11.17 and §13.5 above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Limitation Delay Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Imperil trial/very late amendment Ready for Trial Jan See 11.53A 19. James Murdoch (Chief Executive of NI from December 2007 until September 2009, Executive Chairman from January 2008 until September 2011 (NGN) and February 2013 (NI)) … to (4A) Mr Murdoch or authorised approved the strong public denials issued on 15 July 2009 in relation the allegations which had been made in The Guardian on 8 July 2009, all of which were true and which, given his knowledge of the Gordon Taylor matter, he was aware were true. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 214-220 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined under 19(4A) above. This paragraph refers to alleged public denials in 2010 and 2011. See §11.17 and §13.5 above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. As above Permission granted As above Permission granted. 19. (5A) Mr Murdoch authorised or approved: 19. (a) the strong public the denial on News Corp website (paragraph 13.5 above and 12(L)(d) below is repeated); (b) the strong public attack on the Select Committee Report of February 2010 (paragraph 13.8.4 above is repeated); and 19. (c) the strong denials the public of allegations made in the New York Times article published on 1 September 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection (paragraphs 13.11 13.11A are repeated) and above to that despite the fact that given his knowledge of the Gordon Taylor matter he was aware the allegations were true (or at least turned a blind eye to the whether allegations were true). (5B) Mr Murdoch's the evidence Leveson Inquiry, which included a witness statement, oral testimony and a letter he had written the CMS Select in Committee March 2012, was that he was misled by executives at the over NI allegations that the One Rogue to 19. 1. This paragraph refers to: As above • James Murdoch's Witness Statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 16.04.12 and oral evidence on 24.04.12; and • James Murdoch's letter to the CMS Select Committee publicly available from at least 14.03.12 (see pages 7- 12 of Exhibit CF4). Consequential to the foregoing THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Reporter narrative and that the "For email Neville" not was suggestive of evidence of more widespread wrongdoing. In the premises, he knew this to be false. (5C) Mr Murdoch was involved heavily the in establishment of the MSC. This was misleadingly on described multiple occasions by Mr to Murdoch the Inquiry Leveson and the CMS Select Committee as independent of News International when it was not in 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 214-220 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined under 19(4A) above. As per paragraphs 18A to 18J above As above Permission refused. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection genuinely fact independent, paragraph 18A to 18J are above repeated). 19. Rebekah Brooks (Editor of The News of the World, The Sun and Chief Executive from 2009). (5D) As Deputy Features Editor and Features Editor of the News of the World in 1994 to 1995, Ms Brooks commissioned PIs out carry to unlawful enquiries. further Pending the disclosure, Claimants will rely on the matters In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to: SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION • The 9th Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith dated 19.02.20 which seeks to justify the previous amendments to the RAGPCD {F/286}; • A spreadsheet of ZC entries, which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 07.05.21 {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}; • An email from Graham Dudman to Victoria Newton dated 02.02.06 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.18 {Y/106.03/1} {K/674}; • Jon Chapman's MPS Witness Statement (S90A) dated 04.09.12 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 27.09.18; • Call Data disclosed in the claim of Chris Huhne on 05.01.21 (Confidential Limitation Delay Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Imperil trial/very late amendment Ready for Trial Jan 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. No permission to rely on events in 1994, 1995. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) set out below. Exhibit CG39/246-249);15 • An email from Paul Cheesbrough to Rebekah Brooks and Will Lewis dated 24.01.11 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on {Z/1744.6} 12.08.20 {J/2.3087}; • CPS documents provided to the Joint Privilege Committee and disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/2642/16- 17} {P/136}; • James Weatherup's Amended Details of Claim in his Employment Tribunal Case dated 14.07.15, which were disclosed 05.02.21 the MTVIL in {Z/2367.1/5} {J/2.3340}; on • Ian Edmondson's Amended Grounds of Complaint in his Employment Tribunal Case dated 17.07.15, which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.2/2} {J/2.3341}; and • Neville Thurlbeck's Statement of Case in his Employment Tribunal case dated 17.07.15, which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.3/6} {J/2.3342}. 15 In relation to the Claimants' reliance on call data disclosed in the claim of Chris Huhne, I refer to paragraph 31(f) of the witness statement above. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 556. Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Cases Unnecessary: Public Inquiry 557. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting As above 19. (5E) As Deputy Editor of The Sun and Editor of the News of the World, Ms Brooks commissioned Steve as Whittamore, set out in at paragraph 13.17 above, and (via Ray Levine) Taff at Jones to Severnside, carry out unlawful investigations on a of number individuals including those associated with her then boyfriend Ross Kemp. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted, though this appears to be only a repeat of para 13.17 above. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Unnecessary: Public Inquiry 558. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting As above 19. (5F) Ms Brooks was among those executives who authorised substantial cash payments to the PI Steve Hampton (aka "Secret Steve"), who was paid more than £65,000 in such cash payments between March 1998 and March 2000 by The Sun for supplying "ex- directory telephone numbers" "confidential telephone numbers". and 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 19. (6) (g) the emails to and from Graham Dudman, Dominic Mohan and Victoria in Newton, February 2006, setting out how Ms Brooks insisted that from that point all cash payments needed to provide an explanation as to why cash was being used and be signed off by her (or in her absence, her Deputies). (9A) A vast quantity of call data passing Rebekah from to Andy Brooks Coulson, amounting to 806 communications from just one of Ms mobile Brooks' to Mr devices 19. 1. This paragraph appears to refer to an email disclosed the MTVIL on 31.05.18 {K/686}. in THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. Unnecessary: Public Inquiry 559. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting As above 560. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Unnecessary: Public Inquiry 561. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting As above Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted, though this is only an additional piece of evidence that is being pleaded. For reasons previously given, that does not disqualify an amendment to the GENPOC. Permission refused. It is wholly unclear in context what allegation is being made. The call data is only evidence High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 562. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. See §§11.61A-1161N above SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Unnecessary: Public Inquiry 563. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting As above 564. Coulson between 1 January 2010 and 26 May 2011. (12B) The Claimants on Ms rely Brooks' role in the concealment, between January 2011 and 25 January 2011, of the Hammell, Jowell and emails Windsor which implicated Ian Edmondson in phone-hacking which she was told about on 6 January 2011, and then was party to a authorising fresh search of Mr Edmondson's 19. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) in any event and does not need to be pleaded, but it is unclear what it is being alleged to evidence. Permission refused. The content of this paragraph is already pleaded, to a substantial extent, in paras 11.60A and following and at 19(6)(f) and (g). It is unclear what this paragraph is alleging in addition to those paragraphs. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) on emails January 2011, despite knowing that the emails had already been found. Paragraphs 11.61A – 11.61N above are repeated. (12C) The Claimants on Ms rely Brooks' role in the fake email data theft allegation, initiated by Paul Cheesbrough's email to her and Will Lewis of 24 2011, January which alleged that Tom Watson MP and Gordon Brown MP were involved in a plot to steal her email 19. 1. This paragraph refers to an email from Paul Cheesbrough to Rebekah Brooks and Will Lewis dated 24.01.11 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 12.08.20 {Z/1744.6} {J/2.3087}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. See §§17.7A above SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Unnecessary: Public Inquiry 565. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting As above Permission refused, for the same reason as para 17.7kA. There is no paragraph 17.7A. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. This adds nothing to what is already pleaded. data, and was used to as the basis email destroy evidence. Paragraph 17.7A above is repeated. (12D) The Claimants rely on the false statements made to the Leveson Inquiry set out at paragraph 13.15(a) above. (12E) In the premises, lied Ms Brooks and/or gave deliberately misleading evidence at her criminal trial (R v Coulson, Brooks, & Ors) when denying any role 19. 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Unnecessary: Public Inquiry 566. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting As above This paragraph refers to the evidence of Ms Brooks in the trial of R v Coulson, Brooks, & Ors in 2014. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. Unnecessary: Public Inquiry 567. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting As above Permission refused. This raises a collateral inquiry of a vast scope and appears to be a challenge to the fairness of Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) the verdict at Ms Brooks’s trial. It is an inquiry that is inappropriate for the trial in this action. Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 19. 12(F) in or knowledge of phone hacking, her use of PIs and improper of payments to police officers. The written evidence that Ms to Brooks gave the CMS Select in Committee February was misleading in denying that the Goodman settlement payment was not to buy his silence, as she had been in involved to negotiations from keep him undermining the One Rogue Reporter narrative. This paragraph refers to written evidence given to the CMS Select Committee by Rebekah Brooks in February 2010. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. See §11.33B above (Fowler Report) 568. As above SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 569. Irrelevant: relevance stated purposes No to Cs’ Unnecessary: Public Inquiry 570. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to Ms Brooks' evidence to the CMS Select Committee in July 2011. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. 571. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 19. (12G) The oral evidence that Ms Brooks gave to the CMS Select Committee in July 2011 was in a misleading of number respects, in particular when she suggested her of Mr use Whittamore was in relation to the Law' 'Sarah's Campaign, when she had used him for personal enquiries (paragraph 13.17 above is repeated) and not at the time newspaper the was using Mr Whittamore to trace paedophiles. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph apology published by News Of the World in April 2011. refers to the public In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY As above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION 572. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 19. (12H) Ms Brooks was misleading when she issued NGN's apology for phone- hacking on 11 April 2011, she because restricted the period covered to 2005-6, when she that knew voicemail interception took place before and during her editorship and was told by Mr Myler on 14 July 2009 (if she did not already know) about the hacking of David Blunkett in 2004. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection As above SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION 573. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 19. (12I) This paragraph refers to: • James Weatherup's Amended Details of Claim in his Employment Tribunal Case dated 14.07.15, which were disclosed in 05.02.21 the MTVIL {Z/2367.1/5} {J/2.3340}; on • Ian Edmondson's Amended Grounds of Complaint in his Employment Tribunal Case dated 17.07.15, which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.2/2} {J/2.3341}; and • Neville Thurlbeck's Statement of Case in his Employment Tribunal case dated 17.07.15, which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.3/6} {J/2.3342}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 221-222 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to 19(5D) above. As As Chief Executive, Ms was Brooks alleged to have been fully aware of phone- hacking the amended in employment claim of James Weatherup in a 2015. controlling mind of NGN, she was Ian alleged by Edmondson, in his amended employment to have claim, or created a condoned culture the News of the World which included widespread use of voicemail interception and alleged by Neville Thurlbeck, in his amended at 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. What Mr Weatherup and Mr Edmondson said in their employment claims is no more than (hearsay) evidence. This is inappropriate pleading of a particularly marked kind. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) employment claim, known of approved phone-hacking. to have and of 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN 19. Keith Rupert Murdoch (known as Rupert Murdoch): Executive Chairman of News ("News Corporation Corp") (at all relevant times) and Director of News International until June 2012 12(J) Mr Murdoch is a media proprietor and, through his companies News Corp and NI, the owner of inter alia numerous publications including The Sun and News of the World. Permission refused for paras 19(12J) to 19(12N), for the reasons explained in the judgment. Adds nothing to the issues to be tried. Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satel lite Litigation/Wasted Costs Ready for Jan 2024 Trial Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by RM’s knowledge specifically) Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 223-229 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • The newscorp.com webpage listing each member of the Board of Directors of News Corporation, publicly available from (Exhibit least 29.06.11 CG39/925); at • Board meeting agendas from 2010 disclosed in the MTVIL by the end of 2018 (Confidential Exhibit CG39/118- 181); • The transcript of oral evidence provided by Andrew Coulson at his criminal trial on 16.04.14 {U/82/14}; SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY (from unredacted Carmel agendas) THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N • News publicly (CG39/595-596); International available Statement on 10.01.09 • An email from Andy Coulson to Les Hinton dated 08.08.06, which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 16.06.17 {Z/1153} {J/2.236}; • An email from James Murdoch to Colin Myler dated 07.06.08 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/1312.1/3} {J/2.182}; • A Guardian article entitled "Tabloid hacking scandal: the email exchange" dated 09.07.09 {Z/1356} {P/3}; • A Guardian article entitled "News of the World phone hacking: CPS to undertake urgent review of evidence" published on 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN 09.07.09 {Z/1357} {P/4}; • The 6th Witness Statement of Mark Thomson given in the MTVIL on 13.01.12 {F/21/6}; • A New York Times article titled "Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Beyond" dated 01.09.10 and which was disclosed in 2011 {Z/1548} {P/5}; the MTVIL in • Evidence provided by Keith Rupert Murdoch to: (i) the Leveson Inquiry on 06.11.12 12.04.12, (witness statements) and 25.04.12 and 26.04.12 (oral); and (ii) the CMS Select Committee in 2011-2012; and 22.05.12 and • An Ofcom review in 2011-2012. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 223-229 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(12)(J). Drafting amendment As above s/a 574. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 19. 12(K) At all relevant times between 2004 and 2012, Mr Murdoch was Executive the Chairman of News Corp and a Director of News Corp's subsidiary company, NI (of which Les Hinton Executive was Chairman and reported directly to Mr Murdoch). is Mr Murdoch the of father James Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch (both of whom were also Board Directors of News Corp, in addition to James' Murdoch's roles within NGN/NI as referred to above). References in this to Mr section 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Murdoch in this subheading are to Rupert (Keith) Murdoch. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 223-229 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(12)(J). SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above s/a 575. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 576. 577. 578. 19. 12(L) It is to be inferred from his dominant position within News Corp/NI that Mr Murdoch was aware of the nature and extent of NGN's wrongdoing having been informed of the following matters either Mr by and/or Hinton James Murdoch and or by the news media: a. on or around August 2004, Andy Coulson informed Mr Hinton of the fact that he was aware from conversations he had with Neville Thurlbeck that 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) the then Home Secretary David Blunkett's phone had been intercepted. It is to be inferred that Mr Hinton was aware that unlawful VMI was being carried out as early as August 2004 and that Hinton Mr informed Mr Murdoch of the same the at time; 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This paragraph appears to refer to an email from Andy Coulson to Les Hinton dated 08.08.06, which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 16.06.17 {Z/1153} {J/2.236}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 223-229 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(12)(J). SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above s/a 579. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 19. b. Mr Coulson informed Mr Hinton of the arrest of Clive Goodman in around August Mr 2006. Coulson sent an email to Les Hinton on 8 August 2006 at 10:53am requesting a call to brief him of developments with the police. be It can that inferred this was a reference to the arrest of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, paragraph 11.31 to 11.33 above repeated. are Given the significance of 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) the event, and the media reports surrounding it, it is further to be inferred that Mr Hinton reported the fact of Mr Goodman's arrest to Mr Murdoch at the time; c. on 7 June 2008, in response to Colin Myler's email to James Murdoch updating him as to the settlement discussions Gordon Taylor's claim, James Murdoch confirmed his receipt and understanding in 19. 1. This paragraph refers to an email from James Murdoch to Colin Myler dated 07.06.08 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/1312.1} {J/2.182}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 223-229 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(12)(J). SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 580. 581. As above s/a 582. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection stated purposes (pre May 2011) of this matter, replying with the words "No worries". It is to be inferred that given the potential importance of this matter, James Murdoch his informed the father at time the of substance of Mr Taylor's claim and the progress of settlement discussions and that Mr Murdoch was the aware of the extent of allegations made against NGN by Mr Taylor; 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This paragraph refers to: • A public statement published on News Corp's website on 10.07.09; • A Guardian article entitled "Tabloid hacking scandal: the email exchange" published on 09.07.09 {Z/1356} {P/3}; and • A Guardian article entitled "News of the World phone hacking: CPS to undertake urgent review of evidence" published on 09.07.09 {Z/1357} {P/4}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 223-229 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(12)(J). SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY As above s/a 583. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes (pre May 2011) 19. d. on to the of July 2009, as in referred paragraph 13.5 above, News Corp issued a public statement on its website on behalf of News Corp/NI denying allegations widespread wrongdoing made by The Guardian (published on 8 and 9 July 2009, but about which they had been several given days' notice). The Claimants will infer that public this statement was issued with the approval of Mr 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) as the Corp Murdoch, well as News Board (including his sons and fellow Directors, James Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch) and the NI Board (including Rebekah who Brooks was leading the so-called "investigation" into allegations which was heavily referred relied to and upon this public statement). This statement was known to be false by both James Murdoch these in 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) and Ms Brooks, as referred to above, and it is to be inferred that Mr Murdoch was informed of and became aware of this prior to approving it, and/or subsequently as it continued to be published on the News Corp website until sometime after 29 July 2011. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) This paragraph refers to: • Documents disclosed in the MTVIL in an unredacted form by the end of 2018; and SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY (from unredacted Carmel agendas) As above s/a 584. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence • A New York Times article titled "Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Beyond" 01.09.10{Z/1548} {P/5}. dated THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 223-229 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(12)(J). Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes (pre May 2011) 19. e. in around June 2010, a summer retreat of News Corp executives (including at least Rupert and Murdoch his son James Murdoch) took place at Mr Murdoch's California residence Carmel which agenda News International board meeting was compiled for, or on behalf James of, Murdoch entitled "JRM Carmel". The items agenda included "Email Deletion", "Mulcaire/NY in at an for a 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) this Times" (a reference to the New York Times article of September 2010 referred to and above) "NotW sept launch". Mr Murdoch attended Carmel meeting. It is therefore to be inferred that he informed was by son, his James Murdoch, of the details of the email deletion which plan, James had himself devised and was expressly referred to in NI agendas as the "email 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) deletion/JRM plan", as well as the nature and extent of the wrongdoing at NGN, which beyond went the One Rogue Reporter lie. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Consequent to the foregoing SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY As above s/a 585. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting This paragraph refers to: • Evidence provided by Keith Rupert Murdoch to: (i) the Leveson Inquiry on 12.04.12, 06.11.12 and 22.05.12 (witness statements) and 25.04.12 and 26.04.12 (oral); and (ii) the CMS Select Committee in 2011-2012; and • An Ofcom review in 2011-2012. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 223-229 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(12)(J). 19. 12(M)In the premises, it is to be inferred Mr that Murdoch's evidence given to (a) the Leveson Inquiry in 2011, (b) the CMS Select Committee in 2011, and (c) Ofcom's review of the Murdochs as "fit and proper" broadcast licence holders in 2011- 12, namely that he was not informed of the extent of wrongdoing at NGN, was false. This included the promulgation of the dishonest One Rogue Reporter as Narrative, in referred paragraphs 11.37A and to 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 11.37B above. 12(N) The Claimants will also contend, as referred to in paragraph 18A to 18K above, that the MSC, which was established in June or before its and members Mr Lewis and Mr Greenberg appointed by Mr Murdoch, participated in the 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 223-229 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(12)(J). See paragraphs 18A – 18K SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N s/a Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Imperil trial/very late amendment High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) of or strategy concealing destroying of evidence wrongdoing by NGN, contrary to stated its commitment to co-operating with the MPS, and that it is to be inferred this was that known and approved of by Mr Murdoch. to 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 19. (16B) Mr Kuttner authorised of thousands payments for unlawful activities to numerous different PIs. As such, it is clear that the answers that he gave to the Select CMS Committee on 21 July 2009 that he had never come across cases in which journalists or sources tried to obtain information illegally was false. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 230-231 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • Mr Kuttner's evidence to the CMS Select Committee on 21.07.09; • James Weatherup's Amended Details of Claim (Employment Tribunal Case No. 3203748/2011) dated 14.07.15 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.1/5} {J/2.3340}; and • Ian Edmondson's Amended Grounds of Complaint (Employment Tribunal Case No.3201361/2011/ 3202806/2011 and 3203748/2011) dated 15.07.15 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.2/2} {J/2.3341}. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (ie no one says their distress was aggravated by Kuttner’s knowledge specifically) Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Relevant to extent of wrongdoing and knowledge of senior management and concealment. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. No more than plea of evidence. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 230-231 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(16C) above. See documents referred to in §19(16B) - §19(16C) As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 19. (16C) Mr Kuttner was alleged (a) to have been fully aware of, known of and approved of, phone hacking in amended the employment claim of Neville Thurlbeck, (b) as part of NGN's senior management to have been fully aware and of encouraged, phone hacking according in the amended employment claim of James and Weatherup, (c) to have been or created condoned the practices which included widespread use of voicemail 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection interception, amended employment claim of Edmondson. the Ian (17A) As News Editor of and Head Mr News, was Dudman responsible for the commissioning by the News Desk of The Sun multiple different PIs. Given the number and nature of the instructions and PIs which he was 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 232-233 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • Expense forms disclosed in the MTVIL on 30.11.18 and 13.06.19 {K/718.97} / {Y/416.1} {K/1855} / {Y/416.2} {K/1852}; • An Email from Graham Dudman to Stephen Abell dated 26.05.09, which was disclosed in the claim of Heather and 28.06.18 {HFM/873}; and Fiona Mills on • The Witness Statement of Amy Watson given in the MTVIL dated 27.09.21 SUBSEQUENT WITNESS THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Limitation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (ie no one says their distress was aggravated by Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. General allegation relevant to extent of wrongdoing. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) responsible for commissioning, it is to be inferred that he was fully the aware activities they were carrying out were unlawful or illegal. that (19A) As Managing Mr was for Editor, Dudman responsible approving journalists' expenses The payments. Claimants rely by way of example on the matters set out paragraph in 13.16(r) above. 19. 1. {D/116/5-7}. Kuttner’s knowledge specifically) In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 232-233 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(17A). SUBSEQUENT WITNESS THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Unnecessary: Enough Examples Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection As above SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N refers to Commission the Press This paragraph Complaints (PCC) adjudication of complaints made by Heather Mills and subsequent correspondence between the PCC and Mr Dudman as in the claim of Heather and Fiona Mills on 28.06.18 {HFM/873}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 232-233 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(17A). 19. (20B) In his that in he role as Managing Editor, Mr Dudman had responsibility for liaising with the PCC following complaints received by the newspapers. The Claimants contend that role deliberately misled the PCC in order to conceal the unlawful or illegal activities carried out by The Sun to and prevent the PCC from carrying out meaningful a investigation as to the articles or newsgathering of. complained The Claimants will rely, by way of example, on the 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Allegation appears to depend on a PCC adjudication only. No further particulars or detail provided and so the allegation is to be limited to that for which particulars are given. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) complaint relating to Nick Parker made by Heather Mills in 2008 about a flight blag involving her young daughter. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to Amy Watson's complaint to The Sun dated 15.04.10, which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 27.01.17 {Y/418/2} {K/77}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 232-233 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(17A). As above SUBSEQUENT WITNESS THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION 19. (20C) As Managing Editor, Mr Dudman also had responsibility for responding to legal complaints. Claimants The contend that he deliberately misled in complainants order to conceal the unlawful or activities illegal carried out by The The Sun. Claimants will rely by way of example on Amy Watson's complaint to The Sun in April 2010 which involved Mr Parker, and where Mr Dudman himself had authorised PI payments and expenses 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Allegation appears to depend on an individual complaint only. No further particulars or detail provided and so the allegation is to be limited to that for which particulars are given. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) payments to Mr Parker for his "special contacts" on Ms Watson and her Associates, while telling her lawyer and her that Mr Parker had acted entirely lawfully and with legitimate sources. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted save that the reference to phone hacking must not extend to 1994 and 1995. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to oral evidence provided by Andy Coulson to the CMS Select Committee on 21.07.09. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Poor/inappropriate pleading: Repetitive Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Delay Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes (pre May 2011) 19. (24A) The answers that Mr Coulson gave to the CMS Select Committee on 21 July in relation to his terms severance were misleading, and it is noted that he falsely denied knowledge of any VMI at the News of the World. For the reasons set out in herein, is contended that Mr Coulson's the to evidence Select CMS Committee on July 2009 was also misleading in respect of his knowledge of (a) phone-hacking other and unlawful activity at NGN from at least 1994, (b) the it 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection known falsity of the One Rogue Reporter Narrative, and the reasons for his resignation and (c) and the continued concealment by top executives of the true picture. (24B) Mr Mohan was responsible for the commissioning of private various investigators for unlawful activities while a journalist in the Features Department at the News of the World period in the 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 235-6 of Galbraith 39 refer to various investigator payment alleged private records disclosed the MTVIL on in 28.06.17 {M/18/15} {M/20/5} {M/30/6}. Consequential (in oart) on Relevant period amendment Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs Prejudice Delay Limitation THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (ie no one says their distress was aggravated by Mohan’s knowledge specifically) Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused: relates to 1994 and 1995. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection between 1994 and early 1996, including the use of Steve Whitmore. 19. 1. in (25) As set out above Mr Mohan was well and of aware involved the commissioning (from 1996), and (from approval 1998), of voicemail interception, blagging, improper payments to payments to officials public and the unlawful of obtaining information by private investigators The at Sun, In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 235-6 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(24B). THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 586. 587. No objection 588. 589. Limitation 590. Delay 591. Prejudice 592. No objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted except in relation to allegation of improper payments to public officials, for which no particulars are given (or appear in paras 19(26), (27) or (28). High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection including (but by no means limited to) until 2011. (31A) In his reply to the PCC of 5 August 2009, and in his CMS Select Committee evidence of 27 July 2009, he reiterated the Rogue "One lie, Reporter" despite the fact that: (a) he was made aware in May- June 2008 by Mr Crone, Mr Pike the and Silverleaf Opinion that it longer was no 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 237-40 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • Colin Myler's evidence to the CMS Select Committee on 21.07.09; • Colin Myler's 1st Witness Statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 30.09.11; • A letter from Colin Myler to Tim Moulmin dated 05.08.09 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 14.02.17 {Z/1371} {J/2.89}; • An email from James Murdoch to Colin Myler dated 07.06.08 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/1312.1/3} {J/2.182}; and • A contemporaneous note and MPS Witness Statement of Colin Myler, comprising part of a bundle of Joint documents provided the to SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation/Disproportio nate Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Allegations relate to knowledge of wrongdoing and concealment by public statements. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Privilege Committee in 2016 and subsequently disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 31.05.17 {Z/2642/11- 18} {P/136}. stated purposes (pre May 2011) 593. 594. 595. sustainable because of the "For Neville" email disclosed Gordon to Taylor by the in April MPS 2008, and that he knew the that Taylor claim had been settled for a for huge sum precisely that reason. (b) Neville Thurlbeck admitted to him on 11 July 2009 that had he hacked David Blunkett in 2004 as set out in paragraphs 30(c) and (d) above. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Plea of evidence only. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to the Privileges Committee Report on the Conduct of Witnesses before a Select Committee published on 14.09.16 (see 28 of Exhibit CF4). In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 237-40 of Galbraith 39 refer the documents outlined in relation to 19(31A) above. to SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY As above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 19. (31B) The Claimants will refer to the the findings of Privileges Committee in relation to the the honesty of evidence that he gave to the CMS Select Committee on 25 July 2009. findings These were made without reference to or reliance on the MPS Witness statement (MG11) the relating events described in §30(c) and (d) above, given by Mr Myler on 21 December 2011, clearly which show that Mr Myler was told by Mr Thurlbeck of the his role to in 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) phone- hacking of David Blunkett in July 2009, soon after Guardian The published its article about the "For Neville" email on 8 July 2009. (31C) Mr Myler gave false evidence to Leveson the Inquiry in his witness statement, including in relation to the use of PIs at the News of the World, and in relation to the facts and matters described in paragraphs 19(30)(c) and (d) above 19. 1. This paragraph refers to Colin Myler's 1st Witness Statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 30.09.11, as exhibited to Galbraith 39. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 237-40 of Galbraith 39 refer the documents outlined in relation to 19(31A) above. to SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY As above Permission granted. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection (31D) Mr Myler also gave false and/or misleading evidence in his oral testimony to the Leveson Inquiry in relation to his state of knowledge that the One Rogue Reporter narrative was false. (31E) The Claimants will contend that for the reasons set out herein above, Mr Myler's written evidence to the CMS Select in Committee 2009-2010, his oral evidence to the CMS Select Committee in July in September 2011, and his evidence the to and 19. 19. 1. This paragraph refers to Mr Myler's oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on 14.12.11 and 15.12.11. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 237-40 of Galbraith 39 refer the documents outlined in relation to 19(31A) above. to SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY As above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N In support of this paragraph, paragraphs the 237-40 of Galbraith 39 refer documents outlined in relation to 19(31A) above. to SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY As above Permission granted. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Parliamentary Committee of from Privileges 2012 to 2016, was misleading in respect of his knowledge of (a) phone hacking at the News of the World from the time of his arrival, (b) the truth of, and the nature of the investigations into, Clive Goodman's allegations, (c) the the purpose of Goodman settlement, (d) the known falsity of the One Rogue Reporter Narrative, and (e) and the continued by concealment top executives of the true picture. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 19. (33A) The use of VMI unlawful in and Information gathering through the engagement of PIs (such as JJ TDI/ELI, Services, Christine Hart and Starbase) was habitual at The People the period 1998-2003 when Mr Wallis the Editor was during (and which time Ian Edmondson and James Weatherup were also on the News Desk), and Mr Wallis knew and about these authorised activities. The Claimants will that Mr infer knew Wallis and about SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 596. Irrelevant: relevance stated purposes No to Cs’ THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Proportionality and Costs: Disproportionate/Satell ite Litigation In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 241-244 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • Neil Wallis' 1st Witness Statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 07.10.11; • Email correspondence between Geoff Webster and Neil Wallis on 28.01.06 which was disclosed in the MTVIL claim of Simon Hughes on 02.02.21 (Exhibit CG39/619); • The Mulcaire Notes Spreadsheet obtained by the Claimants on 23.06.21 and subsequently disclosed by the Claimants in the MTVIL on 06.10.21 (Exhibit CG39/623) {T/1917}; • James Weatherup's Amended Details of Claim (Employment Tribunal Case No. 3203748/2011) dated 14.07.15 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.1/5} {J/2.3340}; • Ian Edmondson's Amended Grounds of Complaint (Employment Tribunal Case No.3201361/2011/ 3202806/2011 and 3203748/2011) dated 15.07.15 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.2/2} {J/2.3341}; and • Neville Thurlbeck's Amended Answer to Question 5.2 / Statement of Case (Neville Thurlbeck's Employment 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Tribunal case) dated 15.07.15 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.3/6} {J/2.3342}. the authorised same activities when he arrived at the News of the World from The People. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection (33B) Mr Wallis gave false evidence to Leveson the Inquiry in his witness statement, including in relation to the use of PIs at the News of the World, when he stated they were that only used for legitimate purposes. (33C) Mr Wallis gave false evidence to his criminal trial in 2015 in relation to his knowledge of phone hacking at the News of the World, and in his the attack evidence and character of Dan Evans who also gave the evidence at the trial, as set on 19. 19. 1. This paragraph refers to Neil Wallis' evidence to the Leveson Inquiry in 2011 and 2012. See §19(33A) above not §19(23) In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 241-244 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(23) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation/Disproportio nate Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 241-244 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(23) above. See §19(33A) above not §19(23) As above SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Permission refused. Collateral issue about guilt of Mr Wallis and attack on correctness of jury verdict. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) out in paragraph 11.23 above. on (33D) Mr Wallis was able to and did commission Glenn Mulcaire through Ian Edmondson (and others the News Desk). The Claimants will rely on emails between Geoff Webster (Deputy Editor of The Sun) and Mr Wallis on 28 January 2006 in which Mr Webster sent Mr Wallis contact details (including mobile numbers) of an individual, and a Mulcaire 19. 1. to refers paragraph This email correspondence between Geoff Webster and Neil Wallis on 28.01.06 which was disclosed in the MTVIL claim of Simon Hughes on 02.02.21 (Exhibit CG39/235). In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 241-244 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(23) above. See §19(33A) above not §19(23) As above Permission granted. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) to note for that name appears be dated at around this time. It is also to be inferred that The Sun was able to use the services of Mr Mulcaire to work on stories via Mr Wallis and that Mr Mulcaire's activities were used to provide The Sun with stories via this route (as well as between Mr Webster and Mr Miskiw). 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused: plea of evidence only. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to: As above SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N NGN’s reference to §19(23) is an error • James Weatherup's Amended Details of Claim (Employment Tribunal Case No. 3203748/2011) dated 14.07.15 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.1/5} {J/2.3340}; • Ian Edmondson's Amended Grounds of Complaint (Employment Tribunal Case No.3201361/2011/ 3202806/2011 and 3203748/2011) dated 15.07.15 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.2/2} {J/2.3341}; and • Neville Thurlbeck's Amended Answer to Question 5.2 / Statement of Case (Neville Thurlbeck's Employment Tribunal case) dated 15.07.15 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.02.21 {Z/2367.3/6} {J/2.3342}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 241-244 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(23) above. 19. (33E) Mr Wallis was alleged (a) to have been fully aware of, known of and approved of, phone-hacking in amended the employment claim of Neville Thurlbeck, (b) as part of NGN's senior management to have been fully aware and of encouraged, phone-hacking according in the amended employment claim of James and Weatherup, (c) to have been or created condoned the practices which included widespread use of voicemail 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection interception, amended employment claim of Edmondson. the Ian 19. (35A) Paragraph 33(D) above is repeated. to refers paragraph This email correspondence between Geoff Webster and Neil Wallis on 28.01.06 which was disclosed in the MTVIL claim of Simon Hughes on 02.02.21 (Exhibit CG39/235). In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 241-244 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(23) above. 1. See §19(33A) above not §19(23) SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Relevant to extent of concealment of truth and misleading of public. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph appears to refer to Mr Chapman's oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on 14.12.11 and Witness Statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 15.09.11. In support of the paragraph, paragraphs 246- 247 in Galbraith 39 refer to: • An email from Mr Akass dated 14.01.11 which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 17.10.11 {Z/1692/1} {H/378}; and • The 9th Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith dated 19.02.20 {F/286/33}. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Limitation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation/Disproportio nate Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (ie no one says their distress was aggravated by Chapman’s knowledge specifically) 19. (40A) Mr Chapman was aware that, from the beginning of the One Rogue Reporter narrative, it was the that false, payments to Mr Goodman and Mr Mulcaire were made in part to buy their silence and the that investigation into Mr Edmondson was deliberately and limited In inadequate. respect of his evidence the contrary on these the points Leveson Inquiry, it is the Claimants contention that he was not telling the truth. to at 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Relevant to extent of concealment of truth and misleading of public. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to Mr Chapman's written evidence the CMS Select to Committee in 2011 – 2012. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY As above In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 246-247 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(40A) above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 19. (40B) The Claimants contend that for the reasons set out herein above Mr Chapman's written and oral the to evidence CMS Select Committee 2011- 12, was in misleading respect of his knowledge of (a) the purpose of the Goodman and Mulcaire settlements, (b) the known falsity of the One Rogue Reporter Narrative, and (c) and the continued concealment by of the true picture by senior executives. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples This paragraph refers to cash payments to George Alfred, which were made the MTVIL on 05.10.18 disclosed {J/2.827}. in In support of these paragraphs, paragraph 248 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed below which were disclosed in the claim of Melanie Chisholm on 16.09.22. The relevance of these documents is not clear to NGN. • Hertfordshire Constabulary Information Transport Of Application For Spectat Procedure And Excluded Material (Exhibit Production Order CG19/652- 659). (sic.) • R v Farmer and Thurlbeck: Prosecution Opening Note for the Purposes of the Adjourned Plea and Directions Hearing (Exhibit CG39/660-690). 19. (42A) Neville Thurlbeck was for prosecuted corrupt making to a payments police officer (Richard Farmer) in 1999. The defence of both Mr Thurlbeck and Mr Farmer was that there was no evidence that Mr Farmer had been paid by NGN via Mr Thurlbeck for the information he was providing from the Police National Computer. As a result, both Mr Thurlbeck and Mr Farmer were acquitted. During the investigation and subsequent prosecution, NGN claimed 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Collateral issue as to whether NGN generally, or Mr Crone specifically, interfered with the administration of justice in relation to the prosecution of Mr Thurlbeck is irrelevant to the issues in the claim. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) that had it cooperated with the police, and that it could find no payments on the system. However, disclosure of hard copy documents from Tom office Crone's during MTVIL included a number of cash payment forms relating to a paid source of Mr Thurlbeck's called "George Alfred" living at a fictitious address in Wimbledon. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) In support of this paragraph, paragraph 248 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(42A) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above s/a 19. (42B) These payments were deliberately withheld from the police because it is to be inferred they relate to Mr Farmer and were inculpatory. The Claimants will contend that Mr Crone (as well as others unknown at were NGN) for responsible the suppression of this evidence and the resultant interference with the of course justice. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Consequential to the foregoing SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive. Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (ie no one says their distress was aggravated by Crone’s knowledge specifically) This paragraph refers to: • Tom Crone's Witness Statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 30.09.11 and his oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on 13.12.11 and 14.12.11; • Tom Crone's oral evidence to the CMS Select Committee on 21.07.09 and 06.09.11; and • The Privileges Committee Report on the Conduct of Witnesses before a Select Committee on 14.09.16 (see page 28 of Exhibit CF4). published In support of this paragraph, paragraph 248 of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(42A) above. 19. (42C) The and Claimants contend that for the reasons set out herein above Mr Crone's written and oral evidence the Leveson to Inquiry, his oral to evidence the CMS Select Committee in July 2009, in September 2011, and his evidence to the Parliamentary of Committee from Privileges 2012 to 2016, was misleading in respect of his knowledge of (a) hacking phone- and other unlawful activity at the News of the from at World least onwards, (b) the 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) known falsity of the One Rogue Reporter Narrative, and (c) and the continued concealment of the true picture by senior executives. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Evidence/Enough Examples Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by Lewis’s knowledge specifically) 19. (52A) Mr Lewis gave approval for the deletion of all emails from 2007 on 3 February 2011 (one week after the start of Operation Weeting), which deletions were completed on 8 February 2011, the day before NI met the MPS to discuss what data was available, and the Claimants contend that this was a deliberate plan by Mr Lewis (and Mr Cheesbrough and Ms Brooks) to prevent the MPS obtaining from of evidence phone-hacking, other unlawful In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 249-252 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • The 3rd Witness Statement of Mr Cheesbrough in the MTVIL and its Exhibits dated 21.12.11 {F/13} {F/14}; • Witness Statement of Mr Lewis in the MTVIL dated 21.12.11 {F/9}; • The Witness Summary of Mark Ponting available to the Claimants from at least 20.10.15 {D/7}; • A letter from Hamlins to Clifford the Claimants on Chance sent by 20.01.21 {T/1268}; • The 34th Witness Statement of Christa Jane Band in the MTVIL dated 10.06.16 {F/121} {F/122}; • Minutes of meeting dated 08.07.11 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 28.07.17 {Z/1965} {O/242}; • The Witness Statement of Phil Aldred (S310E) dated 16.11.12 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 28.07.17 {Z/2214} {O/40}; • A letter from Linklaters to the MPS dated 17.04.12 disclosed in the MTVIL by 13.01.17 {R/96}; • Generic Disclosure Statement in the 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted: relevant to alleged strategy to destroy incriminating evidence and conceal wrongdoing generally, including from the public. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) MTVIL CG39/691-696); and dated 17.10.11 (Exhibit • Disclosure Statements in the claim of Sir Simon Hughes dated 17.01.12 (Exhibit CG39/697-701) and the claim of Ciara Parkes dated 17.11.11 (Exhibit CG39/702-735). activity and the cover-up that took place in 2007. The Claimants will rely on the fact that Mr Lewis withheld from the police fact that millions of emails had been deleted since 14 January 2011, for 6 months. the 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers the Generic Disclosure Statement in the MTVIL dated 17.10.11 (Exhibit CG39/691-696); and to SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY As above In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 249-252 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(52A) above. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 19. (52B) Further, Mr Lewis deliberately the concealed destruction of emails by making false statements. further Pending disclosure and/or provision of further the information, Claimants will rely by way of the example on following evidence given by Mr Lewis to the Court in 2011 and 2012 such as: (i) in the generic disclosure of statement William Lewis dated 17 October 2011; 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Allegation of concealment and particulars given. Although not directly relevant to concealment from the public, the allegations are capable of evidencing a wider strategy to mislead the public as well as the court. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 19. (ii) the first witness statement of William Lewis of the same date; and 19. (iii) the disclosure in statements signed by Will Lewis the First Claim of Sir Simon Hughes dated 17 January 2012; and in the First Claim of Ciara Parkes dated 17 November 2011. This paragraph references the 1st Witness Statement of William Lewis in the MTVIL dated 21.12.11 {F/9}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 249-252 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(52A) above. This paragraph refers to the Disclosure Statements in the claim of Sir Simon Hughes dated 17.01.12 (Exhibit CG39/697- 701) and the claim of Ciara Parkes dated 17.11.11 (Exhibit CG39/702-735). In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 249-252 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(52A) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above s/a As above s/a 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Not apparently relevant, as pleaded, to issues in the claim. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 249-252 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(52A) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive. Proportionality and Costs: Satellite Litigation/Wasted Costs Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by Lewis’s knowledge specifically) 19. (52C) Mr Lewis was responsible (along Mr with Greenberg) for the securing of the "Wapping Archive", where document storage furniture items from the News of the World offices were securely stored when the paper was closed, and from which 8 filing cabinets and pedestals in disappeared September 2011, prior to a planned the search The MPS. Claimants infer that this was arranged by Mr Lewis and Mr and Greenberg in will rely by 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) support of this inference on the fact that: i. the MPS were not informed that these items were missing; and 19. ii. key NGN the witness statements describing Wapping Archive (including that of Will Lewis of 21 December 2011), failed to mention this disappearance and incorrectly referred to 125 This paragraph references the 1st Witness Statement of William Lewis in the MTVIL dated 21.12.11 {F/9}. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY As above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection items of storage furniture being searched by the MPS in 2011, rather than 117 items. that (52D) The Claimants contend in their role on the MSC, Mr Lewis and Mr Greenberg would have seen the product of the investigation that they commissioned from Linklaters into unlawful activities at The Sun (the Titles Review of The The Sun). Claimants infer that as a result, Mr Lewis and Mr Greenberg saw that the product of 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 249-252 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(52A) above. As above SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Too late to investigate actions of the MSC and try those matters within time allowed for trial. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) searches the commissioned emails included (some of which were disclosed to the Claimants in litigation 8 the years later in what MPS the described as exhibit BPR/128) that demonstrated at least prime facie evidence of unlawful activities having taken place at The Sun. Despite this, MSC the maintained (and still maintains) public the position that such activity did not take place at The Sun. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 19. (54A) The Claimants further rely on the matters relating to Mr Greenberg, and the actions of Will Lewis and the MSC to which he was a party, set out in paragraphs 18A 18K to above. This paragraph refers to the documents outlined in paragraphs 18A to 18K above, which relate to allegations concerning Keith Rupert Murdoch. In support of this paragraph, paragraph 253 of Galbraith 39 refers to: • An email from Simon Greenberg to Paul Cheesbrough which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 22.12.17 {Z/1792} {J/2.634}; and • A Channel 4 News interview between Jon Snow and Simon Greenberg which took place on 05.07.11 (Exhibit CG39/736-738). See §§18A-18K above SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. See para 18A above. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 19. Richard Caseby. Mr Caseby was Joint Managing Editor of the News of the World and the The Sun from June to of in (55) Richard Caseby became the joint Managing Editor of The Sun and the News June World and approved payments private investigators, such as Derek the Webb the News Andy World), Paul Kyle, Hardaker (both for payments from the News of the World and The Sun) and System Of Searches. (by of In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 254-267 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • The 5th Witness Statement of Richard Caseby to the Leveson Inquiry dated 18.07.12 (Exhibit CG39/753- 758); • A System Searches invoice disclosed in the MTVIL on 18.10.18 {T/600}; • A spreadsheet of ZC payments disclosed pursuant to the July 2020 CMC Order on 31.07.20 (Exhibit CG39/739); SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N • A spreadsheet of ZC payments and 17.04.20 in 07.05.21 on disclosed unredacted {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}; form on • An email from Richard Barun to Richard Caseby dated 30.08.11 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 06.08.20 {Y/537.22/1} {K/6458}; • An email from Daisy Dunlop to Graham Dudman and Richard Caesby dated 18.07.11 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 06.08.20 {Y/537.01.1/1} {K/6454}; • Mr Caseby's evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 17.04.12; and • The 2nd Witness Statement of Roger Best in the MTVIL dated 09.10.17 {F/180/11}. Limitation Delay Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs/Satellite Litigation Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Imperil trial/very late amendment Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by Caseby’s knowledge specifically) 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. Relevant to extent of wrongdoing and concealment, and allegations arise from evidence obtained after February 2020.. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) the these, only employment of Derek Webb was made known to the Leveson Inquiry by News International (and thereby NGN). (56) The activities for which Mr Caseby approved payments included targeting individuals the of such 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 254-67 of Galbraith 39 refer the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(55) above. to SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection as Hugh Grant on 3 November 2011 when Mr Grant giving was evidence the to Leveson Inquiry. 19. 1. in (57) On 27 July 2011, Caseby a of payment entitled cash Mr circulated spreadsheet cash records "paid FY2000- 2012b.xlsx" which included numerous records of payments for phone enquires in respect of Jude Law, Sienna Lady Miller, Monckton, Jonny Wilkinson, Shane Warne and others, and several large payments to the private In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 254-67 of Galbraith 39 refer the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(55) above. to 597. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence As above SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. The fact of circulation appears irrelevant (and no particulars of it are pleaded) so the spreadsheet is only evidence. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) investigator Steve Hampton (also to by referred NGN as "Secret Steve"), who was paid more than £65,000 in cash between March 1998 and March 2000 by The Sun supplying for information such as "ex-directory telephone numbers" "confidential telephone The numbers". Claimants' case is the that spreadsheet of payments cash circulated bv Mr Caseby records instances of UIG carried out by The Sun. and 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to an email from Richard Barun to Richard Caseby dated 30.08.11 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 06.08.20 {Y/537.22/1} {K/6458}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs the 254-62 of Galbraith 39 refer documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(55) above. to SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 598. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 599. Poor/inappropriate Poor pleading: Drafting As above 19. (58) On 30 August 2011 Richard Barun informed Richard Caseby by email that Andy Kyle, Searchline and System Searches were all regularly used, and continuing to be used, by The Sun (save for Searchline which he stated was last June used in 2011). The Claimants contend that the email demonstrates Mr Caseby knew before he made his witness statement for the Leveson Inquiry that at least three PIs had not been included in the schedule of private 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) investigators provided the to Inquiry Leveson and, further, were still in use by The Sun. The Claimants' case is that Mr Caseby was well aware of the extent of The Sun's use of PIs during the Inquiry Leveson throughout and his employment. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 269-276 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • Mr Mockridge's Statement to dated 14.10.11; 1st Witness the Leveson Inquiry • Mr Mockridge's 2nd Witness Statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 16.12.11; and • The documents outlined in relation to paragraphs 18A to 18K above, which concern the MSC and Keith Rupert Murdoch. 19. Tom Mockridge. Mr Mockridge was Chief Executive of News International from 2011 (59) Mr Mockridge responsible providing was for information requested of NI thereby (and NGN) the to Leveson Inquiry. The Claimants contend that in his written evidence, Mr Mockridge misled the Inquiry as to the status of the MSC by claiming it was an independent body when it was not, as he also did in in respect of NGN's use of PIs, computer hacking, payments or 1. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Limitation Delay Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs/Satellite Litigation Imperil trial/very late amendment Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry Evidence/Enough Examples Poor/inappropriate pleading: repetitive Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (ie no one says their distress was aggravated by Mockridge’s knowledge specifically) Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Allegation that Mr Mockridge misled the Inquiry adds nothing to the other allegations already pleaded. No particulars of the misleading are pleaded, so it is impossible to discern what is relevant and proportionate. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) benefits in kind made to public officials, corruption and subsequent use of information as obtained result of UIG. a 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Allegations relate to 1994/1995, for which permission has not been granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 19. Piers Morgan. Mr Morgan was the Editor the of the News of World from January 1994 to 31 August 1995, previously having the Bizarre edited column at The Sun (60) In Mr Morgan's witness first to the statement Leveson Inquiry published on 20 December 2011 he stated he had no recollection of the use of private investigators during his time at the News of the World, whether in the commissioning of work the by, selection of, the authorisation of to or payment on discussions This paragraph refers to Mr Morgan's 1st Witness Statement dated 20.12.11, as also in paragraph 277-281 of referenced Galbraith 39. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 277-281 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • Unparticularised SAP disclosure said to have been provided by NGN on February and March 2021; • The Witness Statement of Steve Grayson given in the MTVIL dated 28.09.21 {D/133}; • A log of pager messages disclosed in the MTVIL (with redactions lifted) on 11.01.18 {Z/2} {J/2.28}; • Articles published in the News of the World: o "Who does Di want to bleep with?", Clive Goodman, 13.03.94 (Exhibit CG39/796); o "Hewitt Girl Gets Hate Calls From Di's Home", Gary Jones, 14.08.94 CG39/797); and (Exhibit o "Di's cranky phone calls to married Oliver", Gary Jones and Clive Goodman, (Exhibit 21.08.94 CG39/798); 1. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE SUBSEQUENT WITNESS THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Consequential to 1994-5 Relevant period amendment Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs/Satellite Litigation Prejudice Imperil trial/very late amendment Limitation Delay Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples 600. 601. 602. 603. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) with, private investigative methods such investigators. This was false and misleading. o "She called 3 times in 9 minutes and hung up as she heard Oliver's Jones, 21.08.94 voice", Gary (Exhibit CG39/799); and • Extracts from "The Insider: The Private Diaries of a Scandalous Decade" by Piers Morgan, which was first serialised in the Dail Mail on 06.03.05 (Exhibit CG39/800-802). 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 277-281 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(60) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 604. As above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Consequential to 1994-5 Relevant period amendment 605. 606. 607. 608. As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 19. (61) Pending full disclosure, including of the PI payment records from the Journal Uploads for the period 1994-1995, being the period Mr Morgan was Editor of the News of the World, it is inferred to be the from facts following and matters that Mr Morgan was aware of NGN's use of PIs and other forms of UIG at the News of the World and The Sun during the period of his at employment The NGN. will Claimants rely on in support of this contention: 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) (a) From 1994, and during the period of Mr Morgan's the editorship, the News of was World frequently using Steve Whittamore/ JJ to Services obtain information. The News of the World's use of Southern Investigations, Metshield/Steve John Clark, Ross, Severnside and Christine Hart were all well-established by January 1996 (when NGN's current PI payment disclosure starts) and it is to be 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) inferred were therefore being used prior to that date. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph references the MTVIL Witness Statement of Steve Grayson dated 28.09.21. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 277-281 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(60) above. SUBSEQUENT WITNESS THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Consequential to 1994-5 Relevant period amendment 609. 610. 611. As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 19. (b) The witness statement of Steve Grayson, an investigative photographer who worked for the News of the World as a full- time freelancer for many years prior to joining the staff under Mr Morgan's in editorship 1994. His statement, given September in trial, 2021 for states that PI activity (especially Southern Investigations) was being used by the News of World the routinely from 1992-3 onwards. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 277-281 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(60) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Consequential to 1994-5 Relevant period amendment As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 19. (c) Mr Morgan worked closely and/or with, promoted or recruited, journalists such Clive as Goodman (Royal Editor), Ray Levine (Features Editor), Phil Taylor (recruited The from People), Greg (News Miskiw Editor), Alex Marunchak (News Editor) and Mark (Chief Thomas and Reporter) Gary Jones (Chief Crime Correspondent) who have all been shown to have been using unlawful 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Information gathering from at least as early as 1996-7. Mr Marunchak, Mr Thomas and Mr were Jones extensive users of the PI firm, Southern Investigations. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to: 612. • A log of pager messages disclosed in the MTVIL (with redactions lifted) on 11.01.18 {Z/2} {J/2.28}; and • An article entitled "Who does Di want to bleep with?" publicly available from at least 13.03.94 (Exhibit CG/796). In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 277-281 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(60) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Consequential to 1994- 5 Relevant period amendment As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 19. (d) NGN log retained (until they were found in the safe of Tom Crone's a 21- office) page of messages "HRH entitled of Prince Wales". They are a log of pager messages left for The HRH of Princess Wales by Oliver Hoare between September 3 January 1995. It can be inferred that Mr Morgan was aware that The HRH of Princess a Wales had pager 'secret' following the publication of an entitled article and 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) "Who does Di to bleep want in the with?" News the of World on 13 March under the byline of Clive Goodman. The article reported on the fact that she switched from a mobile phone to a NEC device to prevent anybody picking up her personal conversations and the that device can only be cracked with £25,000 a computer operated system. The Claimants will also refer to the fact that Gary Jones and Alex Marunchak 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) provided Mr Morgan with Mr Hoare's private itemised billing data in August 1994. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 277-281 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(60) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY 613. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Consequential to 1994-5 Relevant period amendment As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 614. 615. 616. 617. 618. 19. (61A) The Claimants will also rely in the support of contention that Mr Morgan was aware of NGN's use of PIs and other forms of UIG during his employment at NGN on further articles published under Mr Morgan's editorship bylined Jones to Mr and/or Mr Goodman which were the product of unlawfully obtained information as he was or would have been aware, such as (a) an article, headlined, "HEWITT GIRL HATE GETS FROM CALLS 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) from DI'S HOME", and bylined to Mr Jones published on 14 August which contained information obtained confidential police and British Telecom documents, and (b) further articles to Mr bylined Jones and Clive Goodman, "Di's headlined phone cranky calls to married Oliver" and "She called 3 times in 9 minutes and hung up as she heard voice", Oliver's published on pages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the News of the World on 21 1994, August 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) which contained information obtained confidential phone records. from 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs/ Satellite Litigation Prejudice Limitation Imperil trial/very late amendment Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (ie no one says their distress was aggravated by Hall’s knowledge specifically) 19. Phil Hall. Mr Hall was the Editor of the News from of 1995-2000 (and Deputy Editor in 1994) the World (62) Mr Hall gave to the evidence Leveson Inquiry that he was not aware of the use of voicemail interception by the the News of that World, private investigators were only in circumstances where there was a strong public interest defence they were and never the source of a story, that police officers were not paid for information, and police in that used This paragraph appears to refer to Phil Hall's written evidence to the Leveson Inquiry which will have been read into evidence by November 2012 at the latest. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 282-284 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • Cash payments made to George Alfred, which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.10.18 {J/2.827}; • Documents disclosed in the MTVIL on 18.12.20 pursuant to paragraph 1 of the order of 27.11.20 (Exhibit CG39/803 – 807) {T/1233}; and "Wimbledon Vice Scandal" by Mazher Mahmood and David Jeffs, News of the World dated 26.06.94. • Paragraph 284(b) of Galbraith 39 refers to the documents listed below, which were disclosed in the claim of Melanie Chisholm these on 16.09.22. The relevance of documents is not clear to NGN. • Hertfordshire Constabulary Information Transport Of Application For Spectat (sic) Procedure And Excluded Material Production Order (Exhibit CG19/652- 659). (sic.) 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted: relevant to extent of wrongdoing at the News of the World from 1996- 2000 (no permission in relation to allegations relating to 1994/1995). High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) • R v Farmer and Thurlbeck: Prosecution Opening Note for the Purposes of the Adjourned Plea and Directions Hearing (Exhibit CG39/660-690). to of investigations the News the always World provided all their evidence the authorities. The Claimants contend that Mr Hall's statements were misleading that he that in knew about the unlawful information gathering being carried out under his editorship and deputy editorship. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 282-284 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(62) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY 619. 620. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 621. As above As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate Pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 19. (63) In support of this the contention, will Claimants the rely on following facts and matters (a) PIs were used extensively prior to 2000 as is set out in the Private Investigator Annexe to these Particulars. For example, Glenn Mulcaire (from 1996 as part of Legal Resource and Intelligence Research (LRI) Ltd), Southern Investigations (from 1993), Starbase (Secret (from Steve) Scott 1998), Tillen and (initially) Andy 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Tyndall (from 1996) were paid by the News of the World, all prior to 2000 and during Mr Hall's editorship. Mr Hall (b) Mr Hall must have been aware that they were commissioned to carry out unlawful activities from the nature of the work they did and the invoices submitted. 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 282-284 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(62) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 622. s/a As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 282-284 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(62) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY 623. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 19. that (c) The fact that PIs were used of hundreds times during Mr Hall's editorship means it could not be the case they that were were only ever used to stand up stories (rather than being the source of a story that was later stood by lawful/legitimat e means). Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused, as relates only to matter of disclosure between NGN and Police. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph appears to refer to cash payments made to George Alfred, which were disclosed in the MTVIL on 05.10.18 {J/2.827}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 282-284 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(62) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N 624. As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 19. a (d) Cash payments were made to a George Alfred living at a fake address in Wimbledon, 1997-8. from The Claimants contend that "George Alfred" the was pseudonym used by police officer, Richard Farmer, to supply Police National Computer data to Neville Thurlbeck. These payments documents relating to 'George Alfred' were also held by NGN in Tom Crone's office and it can be cash and 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) inferred that they were withheld from the police in 1999 during the investigation and prosecution of Mr Thurlbeck and Mr Farmer, and that Mr Hall would have been aware of these documents being withheld given his position. John and (e) Further, hundreds of payments were made to private investigators, including Ross Southern Investigations. The News of the World were in regular receipt of copies of the confidential CID 19. 1. This paragraph does not refers to a specific document but disclosure provided by the MPS in 2019 includes reference to the 'Police Gazette'{G/556}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 282-284 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(62) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N Permission granted (but no permission in relation to allegations relating to 1994/1995). 625. 626. As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection internal briefing "Police (the from Gazette") Southern Investigations. (f) the News of the World did not the provide police with "all the evidence" from Mazher Mahmood's investigations, such as the fact of, and products from, his use of private to investigators frame his targets. Indeed, he was not considered to be a reliable witness by the police. 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 282-284 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(62) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 627. 628. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused, as relates only to matter of disclosure between NGN and Police. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection 19. Stuart Higgins. Mr Higgins was the Editor from of The Sun January 1994 to June (64) The editorship of Higgins Mr covers a significant part of Relevant the Period in which a large number of are articles by pleaded individual claimants as being the product of information obtained UIG. from In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 285-292 of Galbraith 39 refer to: SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N • • A spreadsheet of ZC SAP entries disclosed in the MTVIL on 07.05.21 {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}; and Stuart Higgins' Witness Statement to Inquiry dated 09.01.12 (Exhibit CG39/824). the Leveson The Claimants' schedule of corrections to Galbraith 39 indicates that unspecified missing call data exhibits are to be considered as supporting evidence. On the assumption that this is call data relating to John Ross, as referenced in paragraph 292 of Galbraith 39, we note that this was disclosed on 11.12.23. The Claimants have indicated that this call data will be exhibited to their Reply Evidence. Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs/Satellite Litigation Prejudice Limitation Imperil trial/very late amendment Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (ie no one says their distress was aggravated by Higgins’s knowledge specifically) Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted but not in relation to 1994 and 1995 allegations. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 285-292 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(64) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 629. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATIO N As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 19. (65) Mr Higgins' evidence to the Inquiry Leveson stated he was not aware of the use of voicemail by interception The Sun and that PIs were only used when there strong a was interest public defence. The Claimants contend that Mr Higgins' statements to the Inquiry Leveson were misleading and untrue and knew that he the about unlawful information gathering being carried out at The Sun under his editorship and deputy editorship. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to a spreadsheet of ZC SAP entries disclosed in the MTVIL on 07.05.21 {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 285-292 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(64) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 630. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 19. (66) to Pending full disclosure, the will Claimants rely in support of this contention on the spreadsheet of payments cash circulated by Richard Caseby, records which large several payments approved by Mr the Higgins private investigator Steve Hampton (also to by referred NGN as "Secret Steve"), who was paid more than £65,000 in cash between March 1998 and March 2000 by The Sun supplying for information such as "ex-directory telephone 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted provided that C is able to and does plead that the Caseby spreadsheet was circulated to Mr Higgins before he gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. Otherwise, it is no more than a piece of hearsay evidence. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) and numbers" "confidential telephone The numbers". aver Claimants the that of spreadsheet cash payments circulated by Mr records Caseby of instances unlawful information gathering carried out by The Sun, of which Mr Higgins was aware. (67) Paragraph 19(61)(d) above is repeated. 19. 1. support of paragraph 19(61)(d), In paragraphs 277-281 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(60) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY As above THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Consequential to 1994- 5 Relevant period amendment Permission refused. The paragraph appears to have no relevance to Mr Higgins and relates to 1994/1995. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused: relates to 1995 High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY 631. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Consequential to 1994- 5 Relevant period amendment As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence This paragraph refers to: • An article published in The Sun titled "The Sun traps rat trying to flog Di's secret tapes" dated 10.02.95; • An article published in The Sun titled "I won't name Di in divorce scandal" dated 20.02.95; and • The documents outlined in relation to paragraph 19(61)(d) above. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 285-292 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(64) above. 19. tapes" (68) On 10 February 1995, a story was published in The Sun entitled "The Sun rat traps trying to flog Di's in secret which it claimed to have refused an offer from a student Chris named Hadley to sell private pager messages sent to Princess Diana a 'mystery pal' for £35,000 (presumably as it knew the information was private and its use in an article would be unlawful), yet ten days later on 20 February 1995 The Sun published a page exclusive article from front 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) entitled "I won't name Di in divorce scandal" the concerning breakdown of Hoare's Diane to marriage Oliver, which contained information gleaned from the 21-page log of pager messages as referred to above paragraph at 19(61)(d) (for example references to Mr Hoare's trips to the US and to specific US hotels) and on the occasion actual pager messages themselves (for example 'Thinking of every minute. Love you' which was left on you 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) November 1994). 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs/Satellite Litigation Prejudice Limitation Imperil trial/very late amendment Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (ie no one says their distress was aggravated by Yelland’s knowledge specifically) In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 293-295 of Galbraith 39 refer to: the MTVIL • A spreadsheet ZC SAP entries disclosed 07.05.21 in {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}; and • Mr Yelland's Witness Statement the Leveson Inquiry dated 23.08.11. on to 19. David Yelland. Mr Yelland was the Editor of The Sun from 1998-2003 (69) The editorship of Yelland Mr covers a significant part of Relevant the during Period which large a number of articles are pleaded by individual claimants as being the product of information obtained by UIG. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 293-295 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(69) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 632. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 19. (70) Mr Yelland's evidence to the Inquiry Leveson was that he was not aware of The Sun's use of PIs. Claimants The contend that Mr Yelland's statement to the Inquiry Leveson was misleading and that he turned a blind eye to the unlawful information gathering being carried out at The Sun under his editorship. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 293-295 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(69) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 633. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 19. (71) In support of this contention, the will Claimants rely on the fact that in his Witness Statement to the Inquiry Leveson published on 9 January 2012, he stated that to the his of best knowledge The Sun had never used, paid or had connection any private with investigators in to source order stories or information and/or paid or received payments in kind for such information from the police, public officials, mobile phone companies 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) or others with access the same. to (72) Paragraph 19(66) above is repeated. The Claimants' case is that the spreadsheet of cash payments circulated by Mr records Caseby instances of unlawful information gathering carried out by The Sun of which Mr Yelland was aware. 19. 1. paragraph cross-refers This the spreadsheet of ZC SAP entries referenced in paragraph 19(66), which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 07.05.21 {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}. to In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 293-295 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(69) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE 634. THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Permission granted on the same condition as stated under paragraph 19(66). Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs/Satellite Litigation Prejudice Limitation Imperil trial/very late amendment Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by Roycroft-Davis’ knowledge specifically) In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 296-298 of Galbraith 39 refer to a spreadsheet of ZC SAP entries disclosed in the MTVIL on 07.05.21 {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}. 19. Christopher Roycroft- Davis, Mr Roycroft- the Davis Managing Editor, and Executive Editor of The Sun from 1995-2005 was (73) Mr Roycroft- Davies succeeded Bill Newman as Managing Editor in 1998, having been in editorial management since 1995, and was in post to prior Graham Dudman taking the The position. Claimants contend that the Managing Editors at The Sun the during Relevant Period were aware of the UIG taking place on NGN's behalf and failed to take steps to prevent it. on 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection (74) Paragraph 19(66) above is repeated. The Claimants's case is that the spreadsheet of cash payments circulated by Mr Caseby records instances of UIG carried out by The Sun of which Mr Roycroft- Davis was aware. (75) Mr Roycroft- Davis authorised payments to PIs used by The Sun Ann including Johnston, Christine Hart, TDI and ELI, JJ John Services, Rachael Ross, Barry, Starbase (Secret Steve) and System Searches. 19. 19. 1. paragraph cross-refers This the spreadsheet of ZC SAP entries referenced in paragraph 19(66), which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 07.05.21 {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}. to SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 296-298 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(73) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted on the same condition as stated under paragraph 19(66). Permission granted. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted but not in relation to 1994/1995. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 299-302 of Galbraith 39 refer to: SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION • A spreadsheet of ZC SAP entries disclosed in the MTVIL on 07.05.21 {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}; • Payments authorised by Mr Newman and disclosed in the MTVIL on 28.06.17 {M/13/5}; and disclosed • Annex A to the 25th Witness Statement of Callum Galbraith in the MTVIL, dated 08.07.21, concerning ZA and ZC payments to paragraph 12 of the order of 04.03.20 on 30.03.20 and 06.04.20 {F/379/30}. The Claimants have indicated that the ZA and ZC payments disclosed on 06.04.20 are to be exhibited to their Reply Evidence. pursuant Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs/Satellite Litigation Prejudice Limitation Imperil trial/very late amendment Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by Newman’s knowledge specifically) 19. Bill Newman was the Managing Editor of The Sun from 1989 until 1998, and then The Sun's Ombudsman until 2005 (76) Mr Newman was the Managing Editor of The Sun in 1998, having been in editorial management since 1995. The Claimants contend that all Managing Editors at The Sun during the Relevant Period, were aware of the UIG taking place on behalf of NGN, and failed to take steps to sanction it or prevent it. 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection (77) Paragraph 19(66) above is repeated. Claimants The the aver that spreadsheet of cash payments circulated bv Mr Caseby records instances of UIG carried out by The Sun of which Mr Newman was aware. (78) Mr Newman authorised payments to PIs used by The Sun including Searchline, Severnside, System Searches, Christine Hart, Rachael Barry, Johnston Anne Spencer and including Dove, more than payments in 1998 19. 19. 1. paragraph cross-refers This the spreadsheet of ZC SAP entries referenced in paragraph 19(66), which was disclosed in the MTVIL on 07.05.21 {Y/537.2.1.4} {K/6486}. to SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 299-302 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(76) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted on the same condition as stated under paragraph 19(66). Permission granted but only in relation to payments from 1996. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission granted. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection alone to PIs who the Claimants contend operated unlawfully, namely Severnside, and Searchline System Searches. (79) Further, in 2001, Newman Mr himself commissioned to Searchline carry out a follow- on address blag, from which it is to be inferred that he was aware of the unlawful nature of its activities. 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 299-302 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(76) above. SUBSEQUENT INSIGHT ONLY THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 303-307 of Galbraith 39 refer to: • An email from Mr Michel to Colin Myler dated 24.02.10 and disclosed in the MTVIL on 23.06.23 in the claim of Chris Huhne (Exhibit CG39/830); • CSPoCs issued in the MTVIL claims of: 19.04.22) • Chris Huhne (dated (Exhibit CG39/833 – 872); • Norman Lamb (dated 07.05.22) (Exhibit CG39/505-533); and • Vince Cable (dated 03.03.23) (Exhibit CG39/104-135); and in • Claimant-specific disclosure the claims of Sir Vince Cable and Sir Norman Lamb, comprising call data disclosed on 11.11.22 and 23.05.22. The Claimants have indicated that they intend to exhibit to this call data to their Reply Evidence. 19. Frederick Michel. Mr Michel from May 2009 to December 2011, of Public Director Affairs, Europe, for News Corporation, and from December 2011, Senior Vice-President of Government Affairs and Public Policy in Europe. (80) In his role as head of public affairs for News Corp, working for Rupert Murdoch, Mr Michel was in involved briefing and coaching executives such as Les Hinton, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and others, ahead requested of appearances before the Select 1. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION Proportionality and Costs: Wasted Costs/Satellite Litigation Prejudice Limitation Imperil trial/very late amendment Unnecessary: Otiose/Public Inquiry/Enough Examples Irrelevant: No/Few Extant Claims (i.e. no one says their distress was aggravated by Michel’s knowledge specifically) Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Allegations made against Mr Michel add nothing to the allegations already pleaded against senior NGN executives. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Committee before Leveson Inquiry. and the (81) The Claimants contend, pending that disclosure, Mr Michel was implementing a strategy designed the to conceal truth about the scale and nature 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 303-307 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(80) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection unlawful of information gathering at NGN (such as the One Rogue Reporter narrative strategy in the summer of 2009), a narrative that it is to be inferred, he knew to be false. (82) Mr Michel was also responsible (a) from mid-2010, for the delivery of "Operation Rubicon" (the purchase by News Corporation of the balance of shares in BSkyB) from its announcement in mid-2010, and that, the in furtherance of that objective, he was involved in identifying 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 303-307 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(80) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Permission refused. Does not relate to a generic issue. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) and politicians advisers, their an who were to obstacle the getting deal through the regulatory hearings; and seen to (b) from mid-2009, the for identification of politicians who as were the hostile business aims of News for Corporation, by example for calling and inquiries in investigations the emerging to allegations around hacking phone- the use of and 19. 1. In support of this paragraph, paragraphs 303-307 of Galbraith 39 refer to the documents listed at paragraph 19(80) above. SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE As above s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) private investigators in mid- 2009 and passing that information onto executives at News Corporation and News International who the Claimants contend further would then target individuals those unlawful using means. 1. Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) s/a High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection This paragraph refers to the CSPoC issued in the MTVIL claim of Vince Cable dated 03.03.23 (Exhibit CG39/104- 133). SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION As above Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Poor/inappropriate pleading: Poor Drafting 635. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Evidence 636. 637. Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes 19. (83) The Claimants rely on the facts and matters pleaded in the Claimant- Specific Particulars in Claim claims of: of the (a) Sir Vince Cable (at §37, §31, §8- 10 and §42(f)), referring to the targeting of the then Business Secretary with responsibility for the BSkyB bid, through (i) the theft of data (subterfuge recordings private conversations of Mr Cable) from the Telegraph Group by Will Lewis and Jim Robinson and its of 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) to (ii) the passing BBC; the accessing of his private financial details, (iii) the accessing of his voicemails during period; this This paragraph refers to the CSPoC issued in the MTVIL claim of Norman Lamb dated 07.05.22 (Exhibit CG39/505- 533). SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION 19. (b) Sir Norman (at Lamb §38(d)), referring to the by targeting of NGN politicians for UIG involved in decision- making relating to the BSkyB bid; and 1. High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) 19. 38. 1. (c) Lord Tom Watson (at §26- 28 and 30(h) (i) (j) and (k)) and Paul Farrelly (at §26- 27 and (n)) - §32(g) referring to the targeting by NGN of MPs on Culture the Select Committee deemed hostile business interests. NGN concealed relevant were which facts required the by Claimants to appreciate that they had a particular cause of action against NGN and to plead it and did not have sufficient justify confidence embarking the preliminaries to bring a to be to be to on This paragraph refers to the CSPoC issued in the MTVIL claim of Lord Tom Watson dated 10.03.23 (Exhibit CG39/378-394). SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes s/a THIRD PARTY PARTICULARISATION In support of this paragraph, paragraph 197 of Galbraith 39 relies on "developments in case law as to the legal test applied when bringing a claim outside of the usual limitation period". See Galbraith 39 Permission granted. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes (knowledge is claimant-specific) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) claim. 39. 1. The Claimants will rely on the aforesaid facts and matters to the extent that they are relevant to any individual claim, or any part of it, in support of their case that they did not discover and could reasonable not with diligence have discovered facts relevant to their rights of action and have sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries to bring a claim until a date which is within six years before the claim was brought. Accordingly, by reason 32(1)(b) of Section the of (c) and/or did not In support of this paragraph, paragraph 197 of Galbraith 39 relies on "developments in case law as to the legal test applied when bringing a claim outside of the usual limitation period". See Galbraith 39 Permission granted. Poor/inappropriate pleading: Elsewhere Irrelevant: No relevance to Cs’ stated purposes (knowledge is claimant-specific) High Court Approved Judgment Various v NGN Para Proposed Amendment Document(s) available from Claimants’ Comments NGN’s Ground(s) of Objection Judge’s Decision (“s/a” means “same as above”) Limitation Act 1980, any defence of limitation relied upon by NGN affords no defence to their claim. 1. 415