John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Sonia Vanessa Poulton

The court considered a suite of interlocutory applications in long-running proceedings raising defamation, data protection and harassment claims. Key procedural principles applied included the court’s discretion under CPR 17.3 to permit amendments, the more restrictive CPR 17.4 gateway where the proposed amendment seeks to add a new cause of action after the expiry of the primary limitation period, and the exceptional nature of the power in s.32A of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the one-year libel limitation period. The judge granted permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to plead malice in relation to Publication 1 and to add a new defamation claim about Publication 5, and permitted an expanded data protection claim and a new harassment claim covering Publications 1–5. The court refused permission to add defamation claims in respect of Publications 2–4 under CPR 17.4, and refused the linked application under the Limitation Act s.32A to disapply limitation in relation to Publications 2–4. The Defendant was allowed to re-amend her Defence and Counterclaim in most respects but was not permitted to withdraw the admission at paragraph 18 of her Defence. The separate KB data protection claim was not struck out as an abuse of process but the stay of that claim was maintained; the court directed consolidation/case management options and made directions for how the remaining interlocutory disputes (including alleged breaches of the parties’ settlement agreement) should be pleaded and case managed.

The claimant, a former Member of Parliament, sued the defendant, a freelance journalist, for defamation and breaches of data protection arising from an interview published on 19 November 2019 (Publication 1) and from further online publications. The defendant counterclaimed for harassment and the Third and Fourth Parties were involved as defendants/counterclaimants in related strands. The court dealt with seven interlocutory matters at a case management conference: extensions/amendments to the claimant’s Particulars of Claim (including adding defamation claims for Publications 2–5 and expanding data protection and harassment allegations); a linked application under Limitation Act s.32A to disapply the one-year libel limitation period for Publications 2–4; the defendant’s application to re-amend her Defence and Counterclaim and, if necessary, to withdraw a prior admission under CPR 14.5; directions about lifting a stay in a separate KB claim; two cross-applications alleging breach of the parties’ settlement agreement; directions to progress the QB claim to trial; and costs questions.

The claimant sought (i) permission to amend his Particulars of Claim (CPR 17.3/17.4), including adding new defamation causes of action for Publications 2–5 and expanding data protection and harassment allegations, and (ii) a s.32A order to disapply limitation in respect of Publications 2–4. The defendant sought permission to re-amend aspects of her Defence and Counterclaim and to withdraw a conditional admission in paragraph 18, relying on CPR 14.5.

The court analysed the governing principles for amendment (Pearce and related authorities), the special constraints of CPR 17.4 where proposed amendments are made after limitation has expired (Mulalley, Ballinger, Komarek, Economou), and the limited and exceptional nature of s.32A relief. The judge concluded that: (a) the claimant had an arguable and properly particularised case of malice in relation to Publication 1 and permission to amend that part of the Particulars of Claim should be given under CPR 17.3; (b) adding defamation claims for Publications 2–4 failed the CPR 17.4 test because each publication is a separate act of publication and the proposed causes of action did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as were already in issue; (c) the s.32A application to disapply limitation for Publications 2–4 should be refused because the prejudice to the defendant would outweigh the claimant’s prejudice, the delay was material given a one-year limitation period, and proportionality/public interest considerations did not support the exceptional exercise of the power; (d) the claimant may add a defamation claim for Publication 5 and the court granted permission to do so; (e) the claimant may expand the data protection claim to cover Publications 2–5 and add a harassment claim covering Publications 1–5 (no limitation issues arose for those amendments); (f) the defendant was permitted to re-amend most of her Defence and Counterclaim but was not permitted to withdraw the admission at paragraph 18 because of the delay, prejudice to the claimant and weak grounds advanced for withdrawal under CPR 14.5; and (g) the separate KB claim was not struck out as abusive but the court declined to lift the stay pending resolution of the QB proceedings and indicated that consolidation would be appropriate if the stay were lifted. The court gave detailed directions for pleadings, disclosure, costs budgeting and for how the Fifth and Sixth Applications alleging breaches of the settlement agreement should be pleaded and case managed.

The court made a series of interlocutory disposals. In short: permission was granted to amend the Particulars of Claim to plead malice in respect of Publication 1, to add a defamation claim as to Publication 5, and to expand the data protection claim and add a harassment claim covering Publications 1–5; permission to add defamation claims for Publications 2–4 under CPR 17.4 was refused; the application under the Limitation Act s.32A to disapply the one‑year libel limitation period for Publications 2–4 was refused for lack of exceptional justification and because prejudice and proportionality factors weighed against disapplication; the Defendant was permitted to re-amend her Defence and Counterclaim in most respects but was refused permission to withdraw the admission in paragraph 18 (CPR 14.5); the separate KB data‑protection claim was not struck out as an abuse of process but the stay was maintained; the court directed how the Fifth and Sixth Applications (alleged breaches of settlement) should be pleaded and case‑managed; and the court made a number of costs directions and orders reflecting the mixed outcomes. The court’s reasons are summarised above and follow the authorities and principles about amendment, limitation and the exceptional nature of s.32A.