Mohammed Abdul Munim v Hafizur Rahman

Summary disposal of a defamation claim is appropriate where no pleaded defence has a realistic prospect of success and no other reason justifies a trial. The court may rely on binding findings in related proceedings when those findings effectively determine a defence, including truth.

Reference may be established by ordinary reference or reference innuendo, applying an objective test. Serious harm is not a numbers exercise and may be inferred from the gravity, credibility and reach of the publication. Honest opinion requires the words complained of themselves to be opinion, with an indicated basis. The public-interest defence requires a matter of public interest, actual belief in publication being in the public interest, and objectively reasonable belief. Summary relief may include a declaration, correction and apology, capped damages and an injunction.

The claimant brought a libel claim concerning Facebook posts in which the defendant alleged that he had stolen the defendant’s business, business ideas and intellectual property. The defendant admitted publication but disputed reference, defamatory meaning, serious harm and damage, and relied on truth, honest opinion and public interest.

Related copyright and company proceedings had previously been tried and dismissed. Their findings were upheld on appeal and included findings concerning ownership of the ARTA intellectual property, the defendant’s employment and the validity of a share transfer. The defendant did not attend the summary disposal hearing and had filed no evidence in response.

The issues were whether the court should proceed in his absence, whether the statutory test for summary disposal was met, and what summary relief should be granted.

1. Proceeding in absence. The defendant had notice of the hearing and the material to be considered. In light of his prolonged non-engagement, an adjournment would not serve the interests of justice or proportionality. The court therefore proceeded under CPR 23.11.
2. Summary disposal. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1996 applies an essentially similar test to summary judgment under CPR Part 24. The court must be satisfied that no defence has a realistic prospect of success and that there is no other reason for a trial. Those requirements were met.
3. Reference and defamatory character. Reference is assessed objectively. The claimant was identified by name and photograph in one thread and by photograph, role and known business connections in the others. The pleaded meanings were plainly defamatory at common law.
4. Serious harm. The gravity of allegations of dishonest and criminal business conduct, their apparent credibility, their publication to a substantial audience connected with the claimant’s business and community, and reactions showing that readers believed them established that the serious-harm threshold under s.1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 was clearly met.
5. Defences. The truth defence had no realistic prospect in the face of binding findings in the related proceedings. The honest-opinion defence failed because the posts were statements of fact, not opinion, and because the pleaded opinion was not properly mapped onto the words complained of. It would also fail because the facts relied on could not honestly support the alleged opinion. The public-interest defence had no realistic prospect because, even assuming an honest belief, there was no evidence of reasonable verification. The gravity of the allegations made publication without checking the facts or seeking the claimant’s response wholly unreasonable.
6. Relief. A declaration of falsity and defamation was appropriate because the related trial findings established falsity. An order for correction and apology was justified to repair and vindicate reputation, not to punish. Damages were awarded at the statutory maximum of £10,000. An injunction was granted because the defendant had given no undertaking, had not apologised or corrected the allegations, and the injunction imposed only minimal interference with freedom of expression.

Summary relief was granted in the form of a declaration, correction and apology, £10,000 damages and an injunction.

The judgment records related copyright and company proceedings, rather than an appeal in this defamation claim.

• High Court (Chancery Division): The related copyright and company claims were dismissed after trial: Munim v Rahman & ors [2022] EWHC 2870 (Ch).
• Court of Appeal: Permission was granted only in respect of the company claim. The appeal was dismissed on 14 February 2024, and permission was refused on the copyright grounds.
• High Court (King’s Bench Division): The present court granted summary disposal of the defamation claim.