Syed Ahmed Tariq Mir v Altaf Hussain & Ors

On an application for summary judgment concerning responsibility for allegedly defamatory publications, the court should assume pleaded facts in the claimant’s favour and ask whether a properly directed tribunal could draw the necessary inference. It may evaluate evidence, but must avoid conducting a mini-trial where disputed facts, credibility, or further evidence could affect the outcome.

A claimant may plead alternative cases that a defendant participated in publication or that the publishers acted as the defendant’s agents, provided each inference has a sufficient evidential foundation. The relationship between a political figure and those operating the organisation’s media platforms may require oral evidence and is unsuitable for summary determination where material issues remain. Amendments should be permitted where they are coherent, properly particularised, and supported by an evidential basis.

The claimant brought a libel claim concerning press releases and videos published through media platforms associated with the Muttahida Qaumi Movement. The publications alleged dishonesty. The claimant alleged that the first defendant was responsible because he authorised or participated in their publication, or alternatively because the publishers acted as his agents.

The first defendant applied for summary judgment under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 24.2(a), alternatively strike-out under r 3.4(2)(a). The claimant sought permission to amend his Particulars of Claim to plead the agency case and related factual matters. The central issue was whether the claimant had a realistic prospect of establishing the first defendant’s responsibility for publication.

1. Applications dismissed and amendment allowed. The first defendant failed to show that the claimant’s pleaded participation case or proposed agency case had no real prospect of success. Summary judgment and strike-out were refused. Permission was granted for all amendments sought.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 24.2(a), the burden lies on the applicant to show that the claim has no realistic prospect of success. The court may evaluate evidence where appropriate, but must avoid resolving disputed facts or conducting a mini-trial. Facts pleaded by the claimant should generally be assumed in the claimant’s favour. A case should proceed where cross-examination, fuller evidence, or oral evidence could affect the result.
3. Responsibility for publication could not be summarily resolved. Evidence that publications had historically required the first defendant’s approval, evidence given in Haque v Hussain, uncertainty about how the press releases originated, and the character of the MQM website and Facebook page provided a sufficient basis for possible inferences that the first defendant participated as editor or that the publishers acted as his agents.
4. The agency case was not legally inconsistent with the primary participation case. A claimant who does not know who authorised a publication may plead alternative inferences, provided there is sufficient evidence supporting each. The precise relationship between the first defendant, the CCC and the International Secretariat required consideration of the evidence at trial.
5. The objections to the proposed amendments concerned matters such as evidential weight, provenance, and the significance of geo-blocking. Those matters could be addressed in the defence and, if necessary, at trial. They did not justify refusing permission to amend.