Sonia Poulton has had a bad day in court. After John filed his defamation claim against her in 2020, she and her backers have relentlessly used delaying tactics to try to force an unjust settlement, opposing every procedural motion, proclaiming victory over every costs order in their favour even when larger costs orders are made the other way. Today’s judgement by Mrs Justice Hill is a humiliating and devastating blow for Poulton.

From left, Darren Laverty, Sam Smith, John Hemming and barrister Matthew Hodson outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the 18th October 2023.

In today’s judgement, which is available here, Sonia failed in her bid to stop John Hemming bringing a harassment claim against her, failed in her bid to stop John Hemming’s data protection claim against her, failed in her attempt to withdraw an admission on serious harm and failed in her bid to strike out another data protection claim, which was instead stayed until the end of the current case. In order to obtain permission, Hemming had to show a real prospect of success on the harassment claim. The court found that he had. Hemming did however not receive permission to bring an additional, parallel, libel claim to the GDPR and harassment claims.

Darren Laverty is also proceeding with a claim against Sonia Poulton for breach of the settlement between them. The settlement was confidential, but was referred to in court and in the judgement and has become public domain. Humiliatingly, it can now be revealed that Sonia did not in fact get costs against him for their lawsuit, and had to agree to a lifelong restraining agreement that prohibits her from disparaging Laverty in any way on any topic – although that term is reciprocal. Although the judge has acknowledged that Laverty’s claim (and Sonia’s counterclaim) are technically for breach of contract she described it as in effect a harassment claim, saying,

“[…] I cannot ignore the assertions that have been made about the Defendant’s own conduct of the litigation; that I have given permission to the Claimant to advance a harassment claim against her; and that ultimately the Fourth Party’s allegations of harassment against her may be upheld.”

John Hemming has been given permission to begin a harassment claim against Sonia Poulton, which the court found has a “real prospect” of success.

Because of her litigation misconduct of ambushing Mr Hemming before the hearing of 13 July 2022 with a limitation point, Poulton has been ordered to pay the entire cost of that hearing whoever wins the case. Hemming’s claimed costs were over £7,500 whilst Poulton’s claimed costs were over £22,982.90. Regardless of who wins the case, Sonia has lost her nearly £23K in costs for that hearing and will have to pay some part of Hemming’s costs (to be assessed if not agreed). So she has taken a hit of around £30K.

Ms Poulton was given permission to amend her harassment claim against me … because I consented to the amendments as I wish to prove the merits of my article(s) complained of. She did not receive any costs of the amendments. Interestingly, the judge chose to quote my observations on the amendments, specifically that they had no chance at trial and were wrongly pleaded:

“The 3rd Party consents to the amendments but nevertheless considers these to be an abuse of process. The Defendant initially threatened a libel claim. Confronted by defences of Truth, Honest Opinion and Publication in the Public Interest, she has brought a harassment claim instead. It is trite law that a harassment claim relating to press publications, including citizen journalist publications, must please a conscious or negligent abuse of power by the media. None has been pleaded. The 3rd Party consents to the amendments only because he believes it is in the public interest to prove the truth and reasonableness of his allegations made in the articles.”

Poulton has also been ordered to pay £195 costs to me of earlier disclosure against a commenter on this blog. The claim against the commenter has been formally abandoned by Sonia and she is not allowed to use the commenter’s name, which as the judge noted has never passed into the public domain. The costs in my favour mean she has lost her costs of applying for the order. I did fail in my attempt to get some of the hearing costs from Sonia in ‘any event’ but I get a second chance as all of those costs were instead ordered in the case.

I represented myself, but John Hemming was represented by barrister Matthew Hodson, whose performance in advocating for John at the hearing was near-perfect in my view, which is the opinion of a particularly demanding legal consumer. Kudos also to the judge, whose judgement was swift and thorough. Obviously, I did not agree with every point but she had gone and researched the file and case law with great care.

Not so long ago, Sonia gloated that her claim for ‘harassment’ against me was ‘growing’. She now faces two similar claims against herself and significant costs consequences of her actions.

The judge has also ordered extensive disclosure.

The case continues.

On Wednesday 13 July 2022, there was a hearing in Hemming v Poulton. I was excused attendance, because although I am a party to the case the technical application between John and Poulton is nothing to do with me and also I had a medical appointment. So, I was astonished to read a highly misleading tweet (archive) by Poulton claiming the court had ‘accepted’ her objections to being described as, “someone who holds herself out as a journalist”. This is fake news.

Sonia Poulton’s tweet is misleading. The court has in no way accepted her objections to the phrase referred to, now made any decision on it.

What happened at the hearing is that it was originally listed before a Master but when further issues were raised late by the parties, the Master decided it needed to be dealt with by a judge and adjourned the hearing. Nothing was decided, least of all was there any decision that the phrase could not be used or was wrong, or that Sonia is a reputable journalist. Nor is it likely to be determined when the hearing was resumed as it is not in issue on the applications.

What was before the court was that John Hemming has applied to expand his claim against Sonia Poulton. Poulton objects. That is the application listed to be decided. The night before the hearing, Poulton via her barrister Richard Munden raised an issue of limitation that some of the proposed amendments relate to claims that are out of time. John via his barrister says they are not out of time but on the safe side applied for an extension of time on the morning of the hearing. With the new and technically complex material, the Master decided a judge should hear the applications.

Sonia did (by her barrister Richard Munden), object to the phrase but the court in no way, for example, told Hemming or his barrister Matthew Hodson not to use it nor struck the form of words out of Hemming’s documents. Hodson has not descended into the arena on this issue, but Hemming commented saying that the Master did not address the point at all. It is bizarre because Hemming is not even disputing Poulton is a, ‘journalist’ because it is not a regulated profession or reserved title. Anyone can stumble in off the street and say they are a ‘journalist’ in the UK. John’s pleadings at paragraph 2 say that the, “Defendant is a freelance journalist”. However, I am entitled to the opinion that Poulton is not a good or ethical journalist. There are a number of reasons and my opinion is based upon all of the facts set out in these linked articles of mine – [1] [2][3][4][5] and the matters raised in this one.

Poulton has been raising money on the cases she is involved in and statements like this to her supporters are highly misleading. It is not the first time. At a hearing last year, Poulton claimed that she had received 85% of her costs, “of the hearing” (archive). This was false. Poulton had received 85% of her costs of only one of several applications. The others had been decided differently – one she had no costs of. One she has to pay Hemming, but delayed until the end of the case. She also agreed to pay my costs and Darren Laverty’s. So her overall recovery was lower and she had to pay me. The overall effect of this order is that everyone except me lost money. Extracts from the order are below –

Extracts from the order sealed 14 July illustrate the misleading nature of Poulton’s statements. She got 85% of her costs on one application, lost all her costs of another, has to pay John later and paid Darren and I.

Continue reading →