Although my claim against her is ongoing, Esther Baker has been handed a life-long restraining Order by Mrs Justice Steyn for defaming former MP John Hemming. She has also been handed a different restraining Order in the County Court for harassing a vulnerable victim of childhood abuse.

On 18 February 2021 Master Lisa Sullivan, sitting in the High Court at a remote hearing, handed down her most recent judgement in Smith v Baker. The judgement is now on BAILII (archive) and the judge has confirmed we can share it as we wish, so a copy can also be downloaded here. There was then a consequent Orders hearing in which Ms Baker was Ordered to pay all of my (very modest) costs. From the past judgement, with the High Court Enforcement Officer’s fees, Ms Baker now owes me £2,275K, so with the new costs she will owe more than 2.5K.

So, what precisely did the court decide? I am suing Esther Baker for defamation and harassment, and she is counter-suing. Esther Baker has entered a Defence and Counter-claim in which she contended she would prove the truth of her words. Baker also claimed her publications were in the public interest. All of her defamation defences have been struck out, except she is still allowed to dispute the meaning of her words and also whether the publications caused serious harm. All of the defence to the harassment claim has been struck out except I have to show the the incidents rose to harassment (which will depend on meaning), and loss (as to damages).

Much of the counterclaim has been struck-out, including all of Ms Baker’s pleas of malice and I have now been directed to file a Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. Baker may then file a Reply (which is mandatory depending on what defences I use). Because Baker’s plea of malice has been struck out, she is likely to have difficulty with any privilege defence whatsoever, meaning that once pleadings close I may have the opportunity for a further application to strike-out / for summary judgement.

Finally, Ms Baker has made an interim application to strike-out application that my claim should be struck out for not showing serious harm. A strike-out application is usually heard before trial, but Master Sullivan directed it be heard at the trial of meaning and serious harm. This means that, as an interim application it is effectively defunct as the trial would have determined the issues anyway.

Bizarrely, at the public hearing after being told I had succeeded on my application and she would have to pay my costs, after being told her own counter-application would be deferred until the trial of meaning, Baker asked the judge for an injunction against me. Despite my best efforts I burst out laughing and the judge put on a very stern look as she explained that, no, Ms Baker could not have an injunction

Simon Just of Spin vs Truth has done a lengthy summary here. For my part, highlights of the judgement include the following –

Judge says, “No”.

For some time I have been concerned that Ms Baker does not seem to understand what is happening.

Judge says, “No”.

Although she produces reams upon reams of paperwork, Baker fails time and again, repeating the same mistakes over and over.

Judge says, “No”.

The case continues …

[UPDATE 24 February 2021 – added BAILII link, minor amends to prose]