Martin Hibbert & Anor v Richard D Hall

Summary judgment may be given on discrete factual issues which are threshold issues, suitable for preliminary determination, and whose early resolution promotes proportionate and efficient litigation. The court must assess whether the defendant has a realistic, rather than fanciful, prospect of success, without conducting a mini-trial. It may evaluate evidence where appropriate and must consider whether reasonably anticipated further evidence or disclosure could materially affect the outcome. A subsisting criminal conviction is weighty evidence under the Civil Evidence Act 1968. Unsupported and inherently implausible theories do not create a real prospect of success.

The claimants brought proceedings for harassment, misuse of private information and data protection breaches arising from the defendant’s publications and conduct concerning the Manchester Arena bombing. They applied under CPR Part 24 for summary judgment on four pleaded factual issues: whether 22 people were murdered in the bombing, whether the claimants were present, whether they suffered the pleaded injuries, and whether those injuries were caused by the explosion.

The defendant denied or did not admit those matters and advanced a theory that the bombing was staged and that the claimants had been recruited to portray injuries. The central questions were whether the issues were suitable for summary determination and whether the defendant had a real prospect of successfully contesting them.

1. Summary judgment granted. The four issues were resolved in the claimants’ favour. The defendant’s third-party disclosure applications were dismissed. Consequential orders, costs and future directions were adjourned.
2. The issues were discrete threshold factual issues. They did not depend on other factual findings and could appropriately have been tried as preliminary issues. Their early determination had substantial practical utility because otherwise the defendant’s case would generate significant additional cost, delay, disclosure and personal impact. Summary determination was consistent with the overriding objective in CPR rule 1.1(1).
3. The court applied the principles in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd, approved in AC Ward & Sons Ltd v Catlin (Five) Ltd. The question was whether the defence had a realistic prospect of success, not merely an arguable or fanciful prospect. The court must avoid a mini-trial, but is not required to accept unsupported factual assertions at face value. It must consider reasonably available further evidence and ask whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that fuller investigation or disclosure may materially affect the outcome.
4. Hashem Abedi’s subsisting convictions for murder and attempted murder were admissible and constituted weighty evidence under section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968. The defendant’s contrary theory did not provide a real prospect of rebutting that evidence. The evidence of attendance, injury and causation supplied by the claimants, corroborated by witness and medical evidence, was credible and sufficient to place an evidential burden on the defendant.
5. The defendant’s alleged inconsistencies, proposed alternative account, unqualified observations, and reliance on further investigation did not materially undermine the claimants’ evidence. There were no reasonable grounds for believing that further evidence or disclosure would affect the outcome. The defendant therefore had no real prospect, indeed no prospect, of success on the issues.