MR JUSTICE JOHNSON Approved Judgment Hegab v Spectator occasioned by publication of the article (when one might not generally expect such detail to be provided in a communication that withdraws from nascent discussions). They arrived from the three separate organisations at roughly the same time, which was several weeks after the article, but very shortly before a letter of claim was sent. The claimant recognised the implausibility that this was all a coincidence. His explanation (which, in isolation, may have been plausible) was that the decision makers for the three organisations knew one another and were likely to have consulted with each other, and that is why the decisions were made at about the same time. 62. The supporting evidence was unsatisfactory. There was no disclosure of contracts, receipts, accounts or payments. Statements from Mr Wasway (of Nature’s Blends) and Mr Rehman (of One Ummah) and Mr Hussain (of SALAM) were served. Each statement apparently supported the claim of disassociation from the claimant as a result of the article. Up until the pre-trial review it was anticipated that these witnesses would give evidence. At the pre-trial review it was said that the court’s permission would be sought for Mr Wasway to give his evidence remotely, and from outside the court’s jurisdiction. Some days later, it was suggested that the court’s permission would be sought for Mr Rehman to give his evidence remotely, and from outside the court’s jurisdiction. The first defendant then served further disclosure which related to Mr Wasway’s evidence. The following day, the claimant served a hearsay notice in respect of Mr Wasway’s evidence, under section 2 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and rule 33.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It was said that he would not be called as a witness because of a pre-existing mental health condition. No medical evidence was provided. I acceded to a contested application made by the first defendant for a witness summons, so that it could call Mr Wasway to be crossexamined on his statement pursuant to CPR 33.4. 63. In cross-examination, Mr Wasway accepted that he has been convicted, on his plea, of offences of dishonesty (causing staged road traffic accidents to secure compensation on a false basis), albeit he maintains his innocence. He was sentenced to 27 weeks’ imprisonment. An ex-colleague from Nature’s Blends was also convicted. Mr Wasway (who did not apparently appreciate the significance of the point), made it clear that Nature’s Blends decided to disassociate from the claimant of its own accord, without consulting any other organisation. He thereby flatly contradicted the claimant’s explanation for what the claimant recognised was, otherwise, an implausible coincidence. 64. I also acceded to an application from the claimant for Mr Rehman to give evidence by video link from outside the jurisdiction. Mr Rehman was served with a witness summons, and it was intimated that he would attend court in person and would be the first witness to be called. In the event, in apparent breach of the witness summons, he did not attend court. It was said that this was due to a medical emergency. No evidence was provided to support that assertion. It was also said that he had been in the jurisdiction for the first day of the trial, but was now outside the jurisdiction, in Egypt. A hearsay notice was served in respect of Mr Rehman’s evidence. I do not consider any sufficient explanation has been given for his failure to attend court in response to the witness summons. Further, it is difficult to credit Mr Rehman’s evidence that the article caused One Ummah to disassociate from the claimant. There are messages between Mr Rehman and the claimant, well after the publication of the