This
From @CF_Farrow Caroline Farrow
THREAD: Hayden v Heath — Hearing Summary (21 Nov 2025)
1/
Just finished listening to the Hayden v Heath hearing before Master Sullivan in the High Court’s Media & Communications List.
Here’s what actually happened
2/The headline: the claim was found defective across all three causes of action. The judge accepted that defamation, harassment and GDPR are all improperly pleaded and must be rewritten.
3/
Defamation:
The judge held Hayden has NOT complied with the practice directions. You can’t annex whole articles and say “the full nine yards” are defamatory. You must identify the specific words complained of. That hasn’t been done.
4/
The Master accepted the Defendant’s point: Hayden must now highlight the exact passages within each article + set out the meanings he says they convey. Without this, a defendant cannot plead a defence. So defamation must be rewritten.
5/
Harassment:
The Master said the current pleading does not meet the legal threshold of conduct that is “serious, unacceptable and oppressive.” As drafted, it simply isn't harassment in law. This was the harshest finding.
6/
Hayden wants to rely on “harassment by proxy” via KiwiFarms. The judge said: if that’s his case, he must plead the actual course of conduct, the specific posts relied on, and how the Defendant supposedly encouraged others. None of that is pleaded.
7/
GDPR:
Again defective. The judge said the pleading doesn’t make clear:
• what personal data is in issue
• what “processing” is complained of
• why it’s unlawful
She also noted that accurate reporting of court proceedings isn’t a GDPR breach.
8/
Pre-Action Protocol:
Hayden refused to engage because he feared letters would be posted on X/KiwiFarms. The Master said she understood the concern, BUT it doesn’t make the defence conduct “abusive” or justify ignoring the PAP.
9/
The Master is giving Hayden one opportunity to remedy the defects. This is common on a first strike-out for LiPs, but it came with clear warnings. He must now properly plead every part of his case.
10/
Hayden must now:
✔️Identify the exact defamatory words
✔️Set out the meanings
✔️Clarify the GDPR claim
✔️Re-plead harassment properly (if he can)
✔️Comply with PD53B
This is a substantial amount of rewriting.
11/
Timetable:
• Hayden amends the claim
• By 30 Jan, Heath must say whether he’ll:
– restore the strike-out/SJ application, or
– serve a defence
• Defence (if any) due by 20 Feb
• CMC on 16 March, in person
• Costs reserved
12/
A notable moment: Heath's KC suggested that Hayden apply to the Advocate pro bono scheme for professional legal help. The Master agreed it “would be good” if he were accepted. That says a lot about the state of the pleadings.
13/
Bottom line:
The court held the current claim is defective.
• Defamation needs full re-pleading
• Harassment (as drafted) is below threshold
• GDPR is unclear
• Hayden must fix everything
• Heath may renew strike-out/SJ in the new year
• Costs still to come
14/
Nothing final on liability today. But the rulings were far from any “victory” narrative. The claim must now be rebuilt from the ground up, and whether it survives the next round is far from guaranteed.
15/
Costs:
No ruling today — they were reserved to the March CMC. But since every limb of the claim was found defective and Hayden now has to amend the entire pleading, the usual position is that the claimant pays the costs of the application that exposed those defects.
"My car has survived a crash because the VIN number is still legible." 🎉😂