Balabhadra Graveley v Roy Schestowitz [2026] EWHC 1611 (KB)

[2026] EWHC 1611 (KB)Case No KB-2024-003529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 18/06/2026
Before
DHCJ GUY VASSALL-ADAMS KC
Between
BALABHADRA GRAVELEYClaimantROY SCHESTOWITZDefendant
Ben Hamer (instructed by Brett Wilson LLP) for ClaimantThe Defendant appeared in Person for in personHearing Hearing date: 12 June 2026
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down at 2pm on 26 June 2026 in Court 15 at the Royal Courts of Justice..............................DHCJ GUY VASSALL-ADAMS KC

DHCJ Guy Vassall-Adams KC:

[1]This is a claim in libel, malicious falsehood and breach of the UK GDPR where the Claimant is applying for orders(1) granting him summary judgment in respect of the Defendant’s counterclaim in harassment and(2) striking out the remainder of the Defendant’s Defence for non-compliance with the CPR. In the course of the hearing the Defendant substantially conceded the Claimant’s applications, accordingly I will give my reasons briefly in this judgment and provide the Defendant, who is a litigant in person, with some guidance in relation to the next version of his Defence, which has to be completely redrafted.

Background

[2]The Claimant is a software developer and programmer, who is also known as Alex Graveley. He is currently a director of Perplexity Computer and Comet, a personal assistant artificial intelligence tool.[3]The Defendant is a software engineer and an advocate in the free software movement, which champions free software and campaigns against the dominance of ‘big tech’ in the online space. The Defendant runs the not-for-profit website www.techrights.org (“Techrights”), on which he published the articles sued upon.[4]By a claim issued on 23 October 2024, the Claimant brings claims in relation to a series of articles about him on the Techrights website between January 2021 and October 2023. The Particulars of Claim focus on an article published by the Defendant on 29 October 2023, the headline of which is, “Further Interesting Developments in the Story of the Serial Strangler, Alex Graveley, Who Made the Microsoft GPL Violation and (Plagiarism) Machine, Git-Hub Copilot”. The Claimant’s pleaded meaning is that the Claimant is(i) guilty of violently strangling numerous women and(ii) avoided imprisonment for these criminal offences by procuring the bribery of an Attorney General in the United States of America.[5]There was significant delay in the Defendant filing a Defence, but on 15 July 2025 the Defendant eventually filed his Defence and Counterclaim. On 30 July 2025, the Claimant issued the present applications.[6]On 8 August 2025, the Defendant applied to consolidate this claim with that of Garrett v Schestowitz and Schestowitz (Claim No KB-2024-001270). That case also involved a claim in libel relating to publications on the Techrights website by the Defendant (and his wife) and Mr Garrett was represented by the same solicitors and counsel as in this case. The application was rejected by Griffiths J on 6 October 2025 and declared to be totally without merit.[7]The trial in Garrett v Schestowitz & Schestowitz was heard in October 2025 where the Defendant was assisted by specialist solicitors (but who had come off the record following the CMC). Collins Rice J handed down judgment on 20 November 2025: [2025] EWHC 3063 (KB). The Judge rejected the Defendants’ defences of truth, honest opinion and public interest. The Judge accepted that Mrs Schestowitz had been the subject of a vicious campaign of online harassment, but found that there was no evidence at all that Mr Garrett was behind it (as the defendants had alleged). The Judge condemned what she described as the “unsubstantiated character assassination” of the claimant, [119]. The defendants’ counterclaim in harassment (based on the false premise that the claimant had been behind the campaign) also failed. The Judge made an order for the defendants to pay £70,000 in damages, for an injunction and other relief.[8]I understand that the Defendant is now the subject of contempt proceedings for breaching the injunction imposed in that case and that the contempt hearing has been listed for 8-9 July 2026.

Strike out and summary judgment

[9]CPR 3.4(2) provides (insofar as material) that: (2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or(c) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order. […] (3) When the court strikes out a statement of case it may make any consequential order it considers appropriate.[10]CPR 24.3 provides that: The court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if –(a) it considers that the party has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim, defence or issue; and(b) there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.[11]The principles to be applied by the court on an application for summary judgment are well-established and conveniently summarised by Lewison J in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) at [15]. The critical issue for the court to consider is whether the claimant has a “realistic” as opposed to a “fanciful” prospect of success.[12]The use of CPR 24, in the appropriate case, is to be encouraged. As Lord Woolf stated in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91; [2000] PIQR P51 at [14]:
“It is important that a judge in appropriate cases should make use of the powers contained in Part 24. In doing so he or she gives effect to the overriding objectives contained in Part 1. It saves expense; it achieves expedition; it avoids the court's resources being used up on cases where this serves no purpose, and I would add, generally, that it is in the interests of justice. If a claimant has a case which is bound to fail, then it is in the claimant's interests to know as soon as possible that that is the position.”

The Counterclaim

[13]It is convenient to start with the counterclaim, which is pleaded in the Defendant’s Defence at page 82. The counterclaim is a claim in harassment, pursuant to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The particulars of harassment are as follows: 1. This Claim was not brought for any genuine concern by the Claimant for any damage to his reputation, and herein the Defence is repeated. It was advanced not for legitimate reasons, but as a tactic to harass and to force the Defendant to settle the claims responded to above - claims that are of no actual merit. The Claim, Defence and Counterclaim (but not Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, which was sloppily prepared by Mr. Garrett's legal team in a hurry and contained serious lies - signed with a statement of truth! - probably because they hoped I would settle a few days before the deadline), and Schedule of Harassment are annexed for the Garrett Case, which is extremely and obviously connected to this one. It is totally unacceptable conduct by the barrister and the law firm, which is under an advanced investigation by the SRA. The legal team is exactly the same in both cases, constituting not only a potentially conflicting overlap but also ethical breaches. 2. The Defence, hitherto, has already set out the reasons - the coincidence that both use the same lawyer and barrister, as well as their personal connections, their professional connection, the timings since 2021 and so on.[14]It is clear from the pleading that the alleged harassment complained of in the counterclaim is the fact that the Claimant has brought claims against the Defendant in this case and that Mr Garrett brought claims against him in Garrett v Schestowitz & Schestowitz.[15]Mr Hamer attacks the harassment counterclaim on four grounds. First, he argues that the harassment claim infringes the principle of immunity from suit. Secondly, he contends that the harassment claim is an abuse of process and a collateral attack on the decision of Griffiths J. Thirdly, he argues that even if the Defendant had a viable claim in harassment, it is already clear that the Claimant would have defences under the Act. Finally, he argues that the claim is inadequately pleaded in any event.[16]In Taylor v Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177, Lord Hoffmann described the principle of immunity from suit in the following terms:
“Likewise, the core of the principle of immunity from suit is not in doubt. By the end of the 19th century it was settled that persons taking part in a trial - the judge, the advocates, the witnesses - could not be sued for anything written or spoken in the course of the proceedings. The immunity was absolute and could not be defeated even by proof of malice. The reason for the immunity was explained by Fry L.J. in a well known passage in Munster v. Lamb (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 588, 607: Why should a witness be able to avail himself of his position in the box and to make without fear of civil consequences a false statement, which In many cases is perjured, and which is malicious and affects the character of another? The rule of law exists, not because the conduct of those persons ought not of itself to be actionable, but because if their conduct was actionable, actions would be brought against judges and witnesses in cases in which they had not spoken with malice, in which they had not spoken with falsehood. It is not a desire to prevent actions from being brought in cases where they ought to be maintained that has led to the adoption of the present rule of law; but it is the fear that if the rule were otherwise, numerous actions would be brought against persons who were merely discharging their duty. It must always be borne in mind that it is not intended to protect malicious and untruthful persons, but that it is intended to protect persons acting bona fide, who under a different rule would be liable, not perhaps to verdicts and judgments against them, but to the vexation of defending actions.”
Why should a witness be able to avail himself of his position in the box and to make without fear of civil consequences a false statement, which In many cases is perjured, and which is malicious and affects the character of another? The rule of law exists, not because the conduct of those persons ought not of itself to be actionable, but because if their conduct was actionable, actions would be brought against judges and witnesses in cases in which they had not spoken with malice, in which they had not spoken with falsehood. It is not a desire to prevent actions from being brought in cases where they ought to be maintained that has led to the adoption of the present rule of law; but it is the fear that if the rule were otherwise, numerous actions would be brought against persons who were merely discharging their duty. It must always be borne in mind that it is not intended to protect malicious and untruthful persons, but that it is intended to protect persons acting bona fide, who under a different rule would be liable, not perhaps to verdicts and judgments against them, but to the vexation of defending actions.”[17]Munster v Lamb and Taylor v Serious Fraud Office were both libel cases, but the principle of immunity from suit also extends to claims in harassment: Crawford v Jenkins [2014] EWCA Civ 1035; [2016] QB 231. The ambit of the principle is wide, encompassing not only statements made in open court by advocates and witnesses, but also the contents of documents such as witness statements and statements of case, the contents of draft documents prepared but not ultimately deployed in proceedings, as well as pre-action correspondence.[18]Here, the Defendant seeks to bring a harassment claim where the alleged course of conduct is the fact of the Claimant bringing these proceedings for libel, malicious falsehood and breach of the UK GDPR. In my view, the harassment counterclaim is a direct attack on the entirety of the Claimant’s claims and strongly engages the principle of immunity from suit. This principle exists to protect the public interest in access to justice as well as the right to freedom of expression, so that people can participate in legal proceedings, whether as parties, witnesses, advocates or judges, without fear that by speaking freely they will expose themselves to vexatious litigation.[19]The Claimant’s immunity from suit is fatal to the Defendant’s counterclaim in harassment, which has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, I grant the Claimant summary judgment. I also declare the counterclaim to be totally without merit. As the Claimant’s immunity from suit is a complete answer to the counterclaim, it is not necessary for me to address the Claimant’s subsidiary arguments.

The Defence

[20]The general requirements for the contents of a defence are set out at CPR 16.5 and supplemented, in media law claims, by the requirements under PD 53B, in particular at paragraph 4.3 onwards.[21]Statements of case must be concise and adhere to the requirements of the CPR. Leggatt J explained in Tchenguiz & Ors v Grant Thornton UK LLP & Ors [2015] EWHC 405 (Comm) at [1]:
“Statements of case must be concise. They must plead only material facts, meaning those necessary for the purpose of formulating a cause of action or defence, and not background facts or evidence. Still less should they contain arguments, reasons or rhetoric. These basic rules were developed long ago and have stood the test of time because they serve the vital purpose of identifying the matters which each party will need to prove by evidence at trial.”
[22]PD53B states at paragraph 2.1:
“Statements of case should be confined to the information necessary to inform the other party of the nature of the case they have to meet. Such information should be set out concisely and in a manner proportionate to the subject matter of the claim.”
[23]As was explained in Rzucek v Vinnicombe [2025] EWHC 403 at [21] and [22]:
“21. Compliance with the rules on pleadings is not a mere "technicality" - it is vital to the fairness of proceedings allowing both sides to understand the case they need to answer. Without a compliant defence, it is impossible for the Claimant to reply or, ultimately, for a court to come to a considered conclusion on proceedings. 22. I do not underestimate the challenges for a litigant in person like the Defendant to engage with complex litigation, however the law does not exempt litigants in person from compliance with the rules. […]”
[24]The Particulars of Claim in this case have been drafted by counsel and concisely set out the Claimant’s claims over the course of 10 pages.[25]What the Defendant was required to do by the CPR was to plead a defence that was clear, concise and focussed on the issues in the case, in order to assist the Claimant and the Court to understand what is and is not in issue in this case and the defence(s) that the Defendant seeks to advance. In this way, the defence informs the process of disclosure, which is done by reference to what is in dispute on the parties’ pleaded cases. Likewise, the defence foreshadows the issues that will go to trial. In general, a defendant will not be able to run a defence at trial that has not been pleaded in his defence.[26]The Defence pleads to a Particulars of Claim that is only 10 pages long, yet the Defence is over 100 pages, or 190 pages if one includes the appendices. The first section, entitled “Personal Note on the Defence”, starts with a summary, but swiftly descends into 15 pages of rambling commentary about the approach the Defendant intends to take to the Defence. There is then a section entitled “Important Note Regarding Duplication in Particulars of Claim”, which is devoted to highlighting what the Defendant regards as similarities between this case and the Garrett claim. It isn’t until page 23 that we finally get to the start of the actual Defence.[27]Sadly, it does not get any better. The problems are illustrated by paragraph 1 of the Defence, which should be a straightforward admission about the identity of the Claimant pleaded in paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant’s identity is admitted, but then this single paragraph continues for another 8 pages, digressing into the Garrett case, allegations about poor quality software allegedly developed by the Claimant back in 2008, allegations of copyright infringement by Microsoft, a section on the nomenclature surrounding AI and a section that cuts and pastes an article about plagiarism in Large Language Models. This paragraph reads like a stream of consciousness unhinged from the facts of the case. Regrettably, this unfocussed and incoherent approach bedevils the whole Defence.[28]A defence is a vitally important document which should clarify and illuminate the issues in a case. It should not be used as a vehicle for conspiracy theories, personal vendettas and diatribes. This is an abuse of the court’s process. Furthermore, it undermines the very purpose of a defence by making it hard, if not impossible, to work out what the Defendant’s actual defence is. Here the small parts of the pleading that do address the Claimant’s pleaded case are like tiny islands lost in a vast ocean of irrelevance. This Defence frustrates the court’s ability to understand the case that the Defendant is trying to advance. This prejudices the interests of both parties as well as the effective and efficient management of the case to trial.[29]At the hearing the Defendant accepted that his Defence was not CPR-compliant and that it was necessary for him to start again. The Defendant made it clear that he intends to advance a truth defence and his oral submissions in support of that defence were far clearer and more focussed on relevant matters than his current pleading. This gives me hope that next time around the Defendant will be able to focus in on what is relevant and produce a Defence that actually assists the court in deciding the issues which arise in these claims.[30]The current Defence however is wholly non-compliant with CPR 16.5 and CPR PD 53B and I have no hesitation in striking it out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c).

Next steps

[31]For all my criticism of the Defence in this case, I recognise that statements of case are particularly tricky for litigants in person. To this end, I will try to provide as much guidance as possible in relation to what steps the Defendant must now take and what the new Defence should look like.[32]I am going to make an order that the Defendant must apply for permission to file an Amended Defence, which will introduce a high degree of court control over what happens next. What this means in practice is that the Defendant should serve a draft of the Amended Defence on the Claimant and invite him to agree to the pleading. To the extent that it is not agreed, the issue will come back for a further hearing where the onus will be on the Defendant to persuade the Court to allow in any contested amendment. The Amended Defence must comply with CPR 16.5, which applies to all defences, and CPR PD 53B, which applies to statements of case in the MAC List.[33]CPR Practice Direction 16, paragraph 1.3 provides:
“If a statement of case exceptionally exceeds 25 pages (excluding schedules) it must include a short summary at the start.”
This rule indicates that in general statements of case should not exceed 25 pages, save where exceptionally that is justified by the complexities of the case. Plainly there can be no hard and fast rule, as cases vary enormously in their factual and legal complexity and in some complex cases longer statements of case may be justified. In a straight-forward case like this, however, 25 pages is more than sufficient.[34]The Defendant included a lot of appendices to his Defence, greatly adding to the overall length. It is permissible for a party to attach schedules to a statement of case, for example to include a document that is central to a case (e.g. an article in a libel claim, a contract in a contractual claim). However, most of the Defendant’s appendices are simply additional pleading. The only documentation is the pleadings from the Garrett case which are no longer relevant now the joinder application has been refused. Next time around the Defendant will have to do without appendices.[35]Accordingly, this is what the Court will expect from the Defendant in relation to his Amended Defence:(1) The Amended Defence shall be limited to no more than 25 pages in length, using Times New Roman, 12 font and 1.5 line spacing.(2) There shall be no schedules or appendices.(3) There is no requirement to retain any of the original pleading. Indeed, it would be better if the Defendant produced a new draft altogether.(4) In respect of each allegation in the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant must state which allegations are admitted and which are denied (CPR 16.5(1)).(5) Where the Defendant denies an allegation, he must give his reasons for doing so and if he wants to put forward a different version of events from that given by the Claimant, he must state his own version (CPR 16.5(2)).(6) It is open to the Defendant to make a non-admission, neither admitting or denying an allegation (CPR16.5(1)(b)), but only in relation to matters which are genuinely outside the Defendant’s knowledge and not as an excuse for ducking an issue.(7) The Defendant indicated he wants to rely on a truth defence. Accordingly, pursuant to CPR 53B, paragraph 4.3 the Defendant must (a) specify the imputation he contends is substantially true (i.e. the meaning of the article that he will seek to defend as substantially true) and (b) give details of the matters he will rely on in support of that contention (i.e. the facts that support his truth defence).(8) If the Defendant decides that he wants to advance an honest opinion or public interest defence, he must comply with CPR PD 53B, paragraph 4.4 or 4.5 respectively.