Piers Morgan threatens to sue Earl Spencer
by: Tom Double
October 7, 2026
On 26 June 2026, Guy Vassall-Adams KC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) handed down judgment in Graveley v Schestowitz [2026] EWHC 1611 (KB) striking out Dr Schestowitz’s Defence for non-compliance with various rules and practice directions, and entered summary judgment in favour of Mr Graveley on the counterclaim.
Mr Graveley is a software engineer and entrepreneur. Dr Schestowitz publishes extensively on the subjects of free software and technology on his blog Techrights. Mr Graveley issued libel proceedings over an article that alleged he was a ‘serial strangler’. After being served with the claim, Dr Schestowitz made two failed applications: first a trial of preliminary issues, which was dismissed by Master Davison, and second to join the claim with Garrett v Schestowitz and Schestowitz [2025] EWHC 3063 (KB), which was dismissed by Mr Justice Griffiths (Dr Schestowitz was subsequently ordered to pay Dr Garrett £70,000 in damages following a trial in that action).
In the interim, Dr Schestowitz had filed and served a 190-page defence and counterclaim. Mr Graveley applied to strike out the defence because it was incoherent and non-compliant with the Civil Procedure Rules, and for summary judgment on the counterclaim on the basis that it was incapable of succeeding as a matter of law (the counterclaim was for harassment, and the course of conduct relied upon was the fact of the legal proceedings themselves). At the hearing of the application, Dr Schestowitz accepted that his defence was non-compliant with the civil procedure rules, and it was necessary for him to start again. In striking it out, the judge described the parts of the defence which did make admissions or denials were “like tiny islands in a sea of irrelevance”.
Summary judgment on the counterclaim was granted in favour of Mr Graveley on the basis that Mr Graveley was immune from suit over having litigated the proceedings. The judge also declared the counterclaim to be totally without merit.
The judgment gives Dr Schestowitz the opportunity to apply for permission to rely on a new defence, provided it complies with prescriptive requirements set out in detail at paragraph 35 of the judgment. Since the judgment, Dr Schestowitz has been ordered to pay Mr Graveley’s costs on the indemnity basis.
The Claimant was represented by Adham Harker and Iain Wilson, and Ben Hamer of 5RB
Related Services
- Defamed by the press
- Defamed on social media
- Defamed on television, radio or podcasts
- Defamed on X/Twitter – Twibel
- Defamed on TikTok
- Wrongly circulated as wanted by the media or on social media
- Defending a defamation claim
- IPSO press complaints
- IPSO arbitration procedure
- Responding to a request for comment by the media
- Inaccurate information on due diligence databases
- Norwich Pharmacal Orders – Identifying the Anonymous
- Privacy, Harassment and Defamation Injunctions
- Defamed on Facebook
- Defamed on YouTube
Recent Reported Cases
Legal Disclaimer
Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice
