Iqbal Mohammed was instructed to advise on, and act in, claims brought in the High Court against his client. Iqbal’s client (‘CD’) was sued by her former Taekwon-Do teacher, who claimed £25,000 for defamation, malicious falsehood and harassment. However, after successfully arguing that the claims were defective in their original and amended forms, the claimant withdrew her claims and paid CD’s costs.
Background
CD was in her early twenties and held a blackbelt in Taekwon-Do. She had been tutored by the claimant. The claimant was a well-known Taekwon-Do practitioner who claimed to “compete for England.” She also ran well-known training schools in Worcestershire. The claimant was a member the International Taekwon-Do federation (‘ITF’) and the All-European Taekwon-Do Federation (‘AETF’).
CD was unhappy with the training methods of the claimant and complained to the ITF/AETF. CD complained, essentially, that she was: forced to cut her weight in an unhealthy way; ignored in training and sparring sessions; and there was intimidation or bullying in the claimant’s club.
CD’s complaints were not upheld.
However, the claimant issued a claim in the High Court seeking £25,000 damages for defamation or malicious falsehood, alleging that the complaint was defamatory. The claimant also sought an injunction preventing CD from speaking to anyone about her complaints and an order for “an apology.”
She further alleged that CD had ‘harassed’ her and set out various incidents of harassment.
CD instructed Iqbal Mohammed to advise on the case and applied to strike out the claims, even without a defence being filed. This approach was designed to avoid the significant litigation costs of winning at trial and to provide an early termination of the claim.
Strike out application
In July 2025, Master Dagnall heard the application in the Media and Communications List at the Royal Courts of Justice and, following a day’s hearing, agreed with Iqbal that the claim was defective and liable to be struck out. The master ordered the claimant to amend her claim. The Master refused to make any order requiring a Defence of the claim to be filed without a further review of the amended claim unless CD agreed that a defence was now appropriate.
Amended Claim
Iqbal advised on the amended claim and was instructed to pursue the strike out application, notwithstanding the detailed amendments and new facts pleaded. The claimant withdrew her claim in malicious falsehood.
Second hearing
In a further day of argument before Master Dagnall in November 2025, Iqbal argued that, following his analysis, the claim for defamation remained technically defective and should be struck out. The detailed arguments included that the claim:
- Conflated background facts with the essential facts required under CPR 16;
- Relied on repetitive over-overlapping defamatory meanings;
- Failed to properly plead serious harm, likely serious harm or percolation; and
- Failed to properly plead dissemination.
On the harassment claim, Iqbal argued that the claim failed to plead the statutory ingredients required by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or relied on facts which, on the authorities, could not amount to harassment in law. Further, Iqbal argued that the claimant conflated the alleged conduct of CD with her boyfriend (who was not a party) but failed to plead common design, conspiracy or agency.
These arguments relied on a line-by-line analysis of the particulars.
Master Dagnall accepted these arguments but gave the claimant a third chance to plead her claim. However, on Iqbal’s application, the judge ordered that the claimant pay £9,000 on account of CD’s costs, preventing CD from continuing to pay for the claimant’s failures.
Very unusually, the judge ordered the claimant to comply with a 4-page schedule of instructions which largely mirrored the criticisms made of the claim by Iqbal.
Claim withdrawal
Having had an adverse costs order and facing a third hearing, the claimant withdrew her claim and agreed to pay CD’s costs of over £36,000.
Comment
Defamation is no doubt a niche area, however, Iqbal was instructed on the back of his previous work in successfully defending such claims and, especially, where harassment is alleged. Iqbal’s expertise were sought early and his retention ensured that the claim could be ended early, without even a defence being filed.
As a practice point, where a claim in tort is being advanced in the High Court, it is important, and likely more cost effective as this case shows, to engage counsel early to advise on and draft pleadings with careful, and importantly, critical attention to the ingredients of the tort and the facts relied on to prove each ingredient.
