Shah Muhammad v Daily The News International & Ors

A litigant in person is entitled to reasonable case-management allowance, but must comply with procedural rules and limitation periods to the same standard as a represented party. Under Defamation Act 2013, section 10, a claim against a person who was not the author, editor or publisher can proceed only where it was not reasonably practicable to sue the relevant author, editor or publisher. A jurisdictional challenge under CPR rule 11 is assessed by the good arguable case standard. The one-year defamation limitation period may be disapplied only where, having regard to all the circumstances, it is equitable to do so. Delay caused by personal circumstances and unfamiliarity with accessible procedural rules did not justify extending time.

The claimant, acting in person, brought a libel claim concerning reports of a protest outside the Pakistani High Commission and Qatari Embassy. He alleged that references to an organiser called Shah Mehmood Khan referred to him. The second to fourth defendants challenged the court’s jurisdiction under CPR rule 11, relying on section 10 of the Defamation Act 2013, defective service, and limitation. The claimant applied under section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 to extend the one-year limitation period. The issues were whether the defendants were proper authors, editors or publishers, whether the fourth defendant had been validly served, when the claim was brought, and whether it was equitable to disapply the limitation period.

1. The applications under CPR rule 11 succeeded in substantial part. The claimant failed to establish a good arguable case that the second defendant published the relevant material, apart from the Urdu print edition of the Daily Jang London, or that the third defendant was the author, editor or publisher of the complained-of print and website material. The fourth defendant was the author of the articles. Declarations were made under section 10 of the Defamation Act 2013.

2. Service on the fourth defendant was invalid. The claimant had not served him personally or at his usual or last known residence, had not taken the reasonable steps required before seeking alternative service, and had made no application for service by alternative means. Lack of familiarity with the CPR did not assist him.

3. The claim was brought on 27 July 2022, when the claim form was issued in its final form and the correct fee was paid. The earlier delivery of documents did not bring the claim within the limitation period because the documents underwent material changes and the claimant understood that the earlier forms had not been issued.

4. The court applied the section 32A factors. The claimant knew of the publications within weeks, had ample time to issue proceedings, delayed until shortly before expiry, and waited a further seven months before applying for an extension. The one-year period reflects the importance of prompt vindication in libel claims. His wedding, illness, birth of his child, status as a litigant in person and lack of legal knowledge did not make it equitable to extend time. The prejudice caused to defendants by losing a limitation defence outweighed the claimant’s prejudice.

5. The section 32A application was dismissed. Service of the claim form was set aside under CPR rule 11(6).