Ok, I managed to scroll through the opening particulars. His Lordship makes reference to Re H in his burden of proof summation but rather worryingly seems to suggest as he wasn't invited to consider this 'flexible standard' he has relied on the usual common law approach.

He then cites Bokhova as authority which is just... What I can't understand is he appears to have ignored Re H & McCann Manchester which specifically says allegations of criminal conduct require a stricter approach to the evidence because of serious consequence to the defendant.

This was a perfect opportunity to clarify the law in this area because all of the HOL judgments are clear that the flexible standard applies across all civil actions, including (impliedly) libel where a test case has been awaited for some time. So, he's basically bottled it.

This outcome is precisely the sort of distorted, disproportionate verdict that intuitively seems contrary to the principles of justice and precisely why Re H set out to fix this following Denning. Those cases are family law but they are clear: it's all civil law. I don't get it.

I need to read his reasoning and go over it a few times (I'm also waiting on colleagues who are just as stunned) but seems to me he's set out his stall with the common law Bokhova approach & everything follows from that. That is: it's not that strict an evidentiary burden.

And with respect to His Lordship, he seems aware of this but is effectively blaming counsel for not inviting him to apply the McCann rule. Terrible. I would be very surprised if this isn't appealed because this is a disaster for future claims of this kind. CoA needs to clarify.

Some of you may recall me discussing Re H and it is this authority which left me relaxed on this case. I was surprised to see it not included but you always work with the assumption the trial judge will utilise the higher authorities. Very worrying that he's chosen not to.

I know this looks like boring law speak but basically, he had a choice to apply the stricter approach but chose not to & has effectively blamed counsel for not inviting him to. That may screw an appeal so if they do, it should go direct to the appellate bench. That's my view.