High Court Judge Master Davidson found in favour of Claimants, Martin and Eve Hibbert, application for summary judgment that would prevent the Defendant, Richard D Hall, from claiming the 2017 Manchester Arena Bombing did not occur and the Claimants’ injuries were not caused as a result of the terrorist attack.
Martin Hibbert and Eve Hibbert v Richard D Hall [2024] EWHC 1665
Background
On 22 May 2017, Martin took his daughter, who at the time was 14, to the Ariana Grande concert in the Manchester Arena. As they left the concert, terrorist Salman Abedi detonated an explosive device killing and injuring many.
Martin was left paralysed from the waist down and Eve suffered a serious traumatic brain injury.
The Defendant in this case, Richard D Hall, publicly spoke and published works, including videos, articles, and a book alleging that the Manchester Bombing was a staged incident.
The Defendant made further claims that the Claimants did not attend the concert and their injuries were not a result of the terror attack. The Defendant also attended Eve’s home uninvited. After knocking on the door to no answer, the Defendant waited in his car to film Eve, her mother, and her carer without their consent.
As a result of the Defendant’s alleged actions, the Claimants issued a claim for harassment, misuse of private information, and breach of their data protection rights. The Claimants are seeking damages in addition to an injunction that would prevent the Defendant from being able to continue making claims in respect of the Manchester Bombing and the Claimants.
The Claimants applied for summary judgment in respect of specific issues concerning the case. The issues related to a number of statements made in the Claimant’s particulars of claim that were denied or not admitted by the Defendant. These were:
- On 22 May 2017, 22 people were murdered in a terror attack at the Manchester Arena;
- The Claimants were present at the time of the bombing;
- The Claimants were severely injured; and
- The cause of the injuries was the explosion of the bomb in the Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
It was for the Court to determine whether summary judgment could be ordered in respect of the issues and if so, come to a determination. The Court may grant summary judgment against a Defendant on a particular issue if the Defendant has no real prospect of defending the issue successfully and there is no compelling reason why the issue should be disposed of at trial.
When making this decision, the Court must not only consider the information available for the summary judgment application but also evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial.
Judgment
It was held that the Issues were not to be subject to debate at a future trial as the Defendant had no real prospect of succeeding on his claims regarding the Issues. Judge Davidson cited the mounds of evidence including witness statements, CCTV footage, and medical records all of which confirm that the Issues disputed by the Defendant were in fact true, further adding:
“Although his [the Defendant’s] beliefs may be genuinely held, his [the Defendant’s] theory that the Manchester bombing was an operation staged by government agencies in which no one was genuinely killed or injured is absurd and fantastical.”
The claim is now listed for a further directions hearing ahead of the final trial.
How can we help?
Amrik Basra is a Trainee Solicitor in our Private Litigation team.
At Nelsons, our team specialises in these types of disputes and includes members of The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). The team is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, as one of the top teams of specialists in the country.
If you have concerns about the above subject, please contact Amrik or a member of our expert Dispute Resolution team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us