Balabhadra Graveley v Roy Schestowitz

Summary judgment is appropriate where a party has no realistic prospect of success, as distinct from a fanciful prospect, and there is no other compelling reason for a trial. The immunity from suit protecting participation in legal proceedings extends to claims in harassment where the alleged conduct consists of bringing or pursuing proceedings. That immunity may provide a complete answer to such a claim. Statements of case must be concise, focused and confined to material facts. They must identify the case to be met and the issues requiring proof. A defence which is incoherent, argumentative, abusive or substantially irrelevant may be struck out for non-compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules. A litigant in person remains subject to those pleading requirements, although the court may give practical guidance on preparing a compliant amended defence.

The claimant brought claims in libel, malicious falsehood and breach of the UK GDPR concerning articles published by the defendant on the Techrights website. The defendant filed a lengthy defence and counterclaim alleging that the proceedings themselves constituted harassment. The claimant applied for summary judgment on the harassment counterclaim and to strike out the defence for non-compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules.

The defendant substantially conceded the applications and accepted that the defence required complete redrafting. The court considered whether the harassment counterclaim had any real prospect of success, whether the defence complied with the pleading rules applicable generally and in the Media and Communications List, and what form an amended defence should take.

1. Counterclaim. The court granted summary judgment on the harassment counterclaim and declared it totally without merit. The alleged course of conduct was the claimant’s bringing of the present proceedings. The immunity from suit protects participants in litigation, including parties, advocates, witnesses and judges, from collateral civil claims arising from participation in proceedings. Following Taylor v Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177 and Crawford v Jenkins [2014] EWCA Civ 1035; [2016] QB 231, the claimant’s immunity was a complete answer.
2. Summary judgment test. Under CPR 24.3, summary judgment may be given where the relevant party has no real prospect of succeeding and there is no other compelling reason for a trial. The critical distinction is between a realistic and a fanciful prospect, as summarised in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch). The counterclaim therefore had no real prospect of success.
3. Defence. The defence was wholly non-compliant with CPR 16.5 and CPR PD 53B. Statements of case must be concise and contain material facts, rather than evidence, argument, rhetoric or extensive background. That principle was explained in Tchenguiz & Ors v Grant Thornton UK LLP & Ors [2015] EWHC 405 (Comm) and reinforced in Rzucek v Vinnicombe [2025] EWHC 403. The defence frustrated the court’s ability to identify the issues and was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c).
4. Guidance. The defendant was required to seek permission to file an amended defence. The draft should be no more than 25 pages, contain no schedules or appendices, identify admissions, denials and genuine non-admissions, give reasons and any alternative case, and comply with the specific requirements for truth, honest opinion and public interest defences under CPR PD 53B.