Dr Russell Wilcox

Counsel acts on behalf of both Claimants and Defendants, with particular experience in cases involving serious allegations involving high-profile individuals with political and professional profiles in the South Asian community. Counsel’s experience includes both raising and rebutting public interest, honest opinion and truth defences especially in the context of investigative journalism.

Recently, counsel has successfully secured significant damages awards and injunctive relief in cases involving online publication and social media defamation. His tactical approach extends beyond substantive defamation issues to encompass strategic procedural applications, including security for costs and unless orders, particularly in cases involving overseas parties where enforcement considerations arise.

Notable Defamation and Privacy cases

• Chaudhry & Anor v Qureshi [2025] EWHC 1912 (KB) (25 July 2025)
  

  The two claimants successfully represented by counsel in this case were each prominent Pakistani politicians. The First Claimant was the Regional President of the Pakistan People’s Party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and the Second Claimant was his son, both holding parliamentary seats. The Defendant was a journalist with over one million social media followers, particularly among the Kashmiri Pakistani community.

  In November 2021, the Defendant had published videos on YouTube and Facebook featuring an interview with a former employee of the First Claimant. The videos contained extremely serious allegations against both Claimants. These allegations were presented as statements of fact rather than opinion and were widely viewed within the target community.

  Mrs Justice Heather Williams found in favour of both Claimants on all issues. She determined that the words complained of bore the defamatory meanings as pleaded and that publication had caused serious harm to both Claimants’ reputations. Crucially, the Defendant’s public interest defence failed because he had not conducted proper investigations before publication, had failed to contact the Claimants for comment, and had given untrue evidence about alleged disclaimers on his videos.

  The Court awarded £130,000 damages to each Claimant, granted an injunction restraining further publication of the defamatory words, and ordered the Defendant to publish a summary of the judgment on his social media platforms. The Claimants were also awarded their costs.

• Alam Khokan v Hossain Nirjhor [2024] EWHC 1872 (KB)
  

  This case involved a journalist of Bangladeshi origin living in the United States who had previously served as the Prime Minister of Bangladesh’s Deputy Press Secretary from 2013 to 2022,  who sued a London-based investigative journalist over a video titled “Gujob Khokan” published in March 2022, which allegedly made very serious defamatory allegations. Based on two reports the Defendant allegedly secured from official sources, he pleaded substantive defences of truth and public interest, while also raising limitation defences and putting the Claimant to proof regarding serious harm, including the extent of publication within the jurisdiction. The case was scheduled for a five-day trial commencing 1 July 2024.

  Earlier in proceedings, Senior Master Cook heard the Claimant’s application for summary disposal and/or summary judgment alongside certain disclosure orders, which he dismissed as  plainly unmeritorious, being was roundly critical of the Claimant’s conduct in a range of ways and ordering it to pay indemnity costs by a specified date, which it failed to do. The Defendant then sought an “unless order” requiring payment of costs previously ordered by Senior Master Cook failing which the claim would be struck out, security for costs of £26,000-£80,000 due to enforcement difficulties in the USA.

  Mrs Justice Hill granted both applications, ordering that unless the Claimant paid £20,646.58 by a specified date his claim would be struck out, applying principles from Michael Wilson v Sinclair. The court found no overwhelming Article 6 ECHR considerations to prevent the unless order despite the proximity to trial. Additionally, security for costs of £26,000 was ordered, finding both CPR 25.13(2)(a) regarding foreign residence and CPR 25.13(2)(g) regarding asset concealment conditions satisfied, with enforcement in the USA presenting substantial additional burdens compared to domestic enforcement.

  The Claimant failed to comply with the above unless order, and so his claim was struck out. A further hearing was held before Mrs Justice Hill, who awarded costs to the Defendant on the standard basis. The defendant’s costs budget variations were partially approved, and the defendant was awarded £5,500 for consequential matters costs: Khokan v Nirjhor (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 1873 (KB)

  Counsel was instructed by Ushrat Sultana of Stone White Solicitors in the above cases.