Naschie v Macmillan Publishers Ltd (t/a Nature Publishing Group) & Anor

Effective case management requires parties to focus on the pleaded issues and prevents ambush. Irrelevant, speculative or incoherent amendments and evidence may be struck out or excluded where they would prolong or complicate the trial. Claims for special damages require supporting evidence and disclosure; unsupported claims may be struck out. Evidence about technical matters, such as peer-review standards, should come from qualified experts, while factual witnesses may address what actually occurred. A party is entitled under CPR 31.14(1)(c) to inspect documents directly mentioned in a witness statement.

The claimant brought a libel action against the publisher and author of an article in Nature. The defendants made case-management applications before a trial listed for 15 to 20 days. They sought to strike out irrelevant or speculative proposed amendments, obtain summary judgment on a claim for special damages, exclude identified topics and evidence, obtain documents mentioned in witness statements, require further information, and extend time for expert reports.

The principal issues were whether the challenged material was relevant to the pleaded meanings and defences, whether the special-damages claim was supported, and what disclosure and clarification orders were proportionate.

1. Case management. The court should ensure that parties address the real issues and should remove ambush by ensuring that each party knows the case it must meet. Material outside the pleaded issues, or material that is plainly irrelevant, speculative or incoherent, may be removed under CPR 3.4(2). The claimant’s proposed allegations concerning the El Naschie Watch blog, supposed conspiracies, links with other publications and individuals, and related speculation were irrelevant and were struck out.
2. Special damages. The claimant produced no evidence or documents supporting the alleged freezing of service contracts and no accounts supporting loss of earnings. Further, the claim did not extend to publication in Saudi Arabia. The special-damages claim was therefore struck out, leaving claims for general damages for hurt feelings and loss of reputation.
3. Evidence. The court excluded evidence concerning unrelated publications, alleged links and collusion, defamatory publications about others, irrelevant commercial relationships, and opinions about the article or the defendants’ motives. Opinions on editorial standards and peer-review methodology were matters for the permitted experts; factual witnesses could address what had actually occurred.
4. Documents and information. The application concerning documents mentioned in witness statements was not pursued after the claimant accepted that he had done everything reasonably expected of him. The court nevertheless confirmed the inspection right under CPR 31.14(1)(c). The claimant was ordered to provide information about referees, the locations from which the journal was administered, responsibility for inaccurate website statements, and the use of specified names.
5. The deadline for the defendants’ expert reports was extended to 23 June 2011.