Hall v Hibbert & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The claim arises from a terrorist bombing at a large arena on 22 May 2017, where an improvised explosive device detonated at the end of a concert, resulting in 22 deaths and numerous injuries, including those suffered by the Respondents. The Respondents sustained severe injuries: the first Respondent became paralysed from the waist down, and the second Respondent suffered a catastrophic brain injury. Following a criminal trial, the bomber's brother was convicted for the murders and attempted murders related to the bombing and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Respondents brought a civil claim against the Appellant, who describes himself as a journalist and author of a self-published book and film denying the bombing's occurrence as reported, asserting instead that the event was staged by the government with actors involved. The Appellant denies the Respondents were present or injured during the bombing and disputes established facts proven in criminal and public inquiry proceedings.

The Respondents' claim alleges harassment, misuse of private information, and data protection breaches, based on the Appellant's publications and conduct, including uninvited visits and covert recordings. The Appellant denies key factual allegations and challenges the Respondents to prove their injuries and presence at the event.

The Respondents applied for summary judgment on four core issues related to the bombing, their presence, and injuries. The application was supported by witness statements and evidence, while the Appellant opposed with his own evidence. The summary judgment hearing was conducted before Master Davison, who granted judgment in favour of the Respondents on all issues. Permission to appeal was refused by Steyn J, and a renewed application for permission to appeal was subsequently dismissed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether on 22 May 2017, 22 innocent people were murdered in a bomb explosion carried out by a terrorist at the arena at the conclusion of the concert.
2. Whether the Respondents were present at the arena at the time of the bombing.
3. Whether the Respondents were severely injured as a result of the bombing.
4. Whether the cause of the Respondents' injuries was the explosion of the bomb.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant denies the bombing occurred as alleged and contends it was a staged event orchestrated by government agencies involving actors.
• He disputes the Respondents' presence at the concert and the fact or extent of their injuries, suggesting alternative explanations or that injuries were pre-existing.
• The Appellant claims the conviction of the bomber's brother should not shift the burden of proof onto him.
• He contends that the summary judgment was premature and that issues should be dealt with as preliminary issues or at trial, allowing for further evidence, including third party disclosure.
• The Appellant's evidence includes his book and witness statement, which he asserts contain his opinions and analysis of publicly available material.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents rely on the criminal conviction of the bomber's brother as a weighty piece of evidence under section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968.
• They provided credible witness statements and corroborating evidence, including photographs and documentation, confirming their presence at the concert and the injuries sustained.
• The Respondents argue the Appellant's theories are implausible and fantastical, lacking any real prospect of success at trial.
• They contend that the summary judgment was appropriate given the clear and undisputed evidence supporting their claim.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)	Principles for summary judgment under CPR Part 24	The court applied the test for summary judgment as set out in this case to determine if the Appellant had a real prospect of success.
AC Ward & Sons Ltd v Catlin (Five) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1098	Approval of summary judgment principles from Easyair Ltd	The court relied on this authority to confirm the correct application of the summary judgment test.
Korea National Insurance Corp v Allianz Global Corporate & Speciality AG [2007] EWCA Civ 1066	Burden of proof and evidential burden in summary judgment applications	The court applied the principle that once credible evidence is adduced, the defendant must show a real prospect of success to avoid summary judgment.
CXX v DXX [2012] EWHC 1535 (QB)	Effect of section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968: criminal conviction as weighty evidence in civil proceedings	The court held the criminal conviction of the bomber's brother to be a weighty piece of evidence relevant to the civil claim, shifting the evidential burden to the Appellant.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the summary judgment application under CPR Part 24, applying established principles that allow judgment where a party has no real prospect of success. It considered the burden of proof as clarified in Korea National Insurance Corp and the evidential effect of a criminal conviction under section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, as explained in CXX v DXX.

Master Davison found the criminal conviction of the bomber's brother to be a weighty and conclusive piece of evidence that 22 people were murdered in the bombing, including the attempted murders of the Respondents, who were present and injured. The Appellant's denial and conspiracy theories were deemed implausible and fantastical, failing to provide any real prospect of success.

The Respondents provided credible and corroborated evidence of their attendance and injuries, including witness statements and police photographs. The Appellant's evidence, primarily his book and opinions, lacked admissibility and failed to establish any credible factual basis to rebut the Respondents' case.

The court rejected the argument that the summary judgment procedure was inappropriate, concluding that the issues were suitable for summary determination and that the Appellant had been afforded a fair opportunity to present evidence and submissions. The court also found no error in the application or explanation of section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the renewed application for permission to appeal.

The direct effect is that the summary judgment in favour of the Respondents on the four key issues stands, confirming the factual findings that the bombing occurred as alleged, the Respondents were present and injured, and that the Appellant's claims lack merit. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reaffirms established principles on summary judgment and the evidential effect of criminal convictions in civil proceedings.