Richard D. Hall Fails To Convince Judge In Hearing, Related To The Manchester Bombing In 2017
General News
Monday 19th, February 2024
Richard D. Hall has failed in his attempt to convenience a judge to throw out the case brought against him in a preliminary hearing in a case brought against Richard D. Hall by claimants Martin and Eve Hibbert.
With Mr Jonathan Price (instructed by Hudgell Solicitors) appeared for the claimants and Richard D. Hall represented himself.
The core cause for Martin and Eve Hibbert for initiating the case against Richard D. Hall was outlined in the judgement,
The claimants applied for a summary judgment for parts of their claims against Richard D. Hall, which is a legal step which sees those aspects decided without a trial.
The conclusion of the judgement by the judge states,
A future date is to be announced where a judge will decide on the next actions, if any are to be taken and costs to both parties.
The full judgement can be read at the link at the bottom of this article.
With Mr Jonathan Price (instructed by Hudgell Solicitors) appeared for the claimants and Richard D. Hall represented himself.
The core cause for Martin and Eve Hibbert for initiating the case against Richard D. Hall was outlined in the judgement,
On 17 April 2023 the claimants commenced proceedings against the defendant for harassment, misuse of private information and data protection breaches. Essentially, the claimants complain that in his book, in videos published on his website and on YouTube, and in public lectures the defendant has accused them of lies and deception and has misused personal data including their names, images and medical information. One aspect of the claim is that in September 2019 the defendant visited Eve’s home where she lives with her mother. The visit was unannounced. The defendant’s account is that it was his intention to ask Eve’s mother for an interview. Having received no response to his knocking on the door, he set up a camera inside his vehicle and recorded footage of Eve, her mother and her carer.
The claimants applied for a summary judgment for parts of their claims against Richard D. Hall, which is a legal step which sees those aspects decided without a trial.
The conclusion of the judgement by the judge states,
39. For these reasons, I find that the defendant has not discharged the evidential burden which rests on him. He has no real prospect, indeed no prospect at all, of success on the Issues and I will resolve them in the claimants’ favour.
40. The defendant’s applications for third party disclosure are also dismissed.
41. I will list the case for a further hearing to decide consequential orders, costs and directions to take the claim forward to a final determination. I invite the parties to submit a draft order reflecting
A future date is to be announced where a judge will decide on the next actions, if any are to be taken and costs to both parties.
The full judgement can be read at the link at the bottom of this article.
