Court allows claimant time to amend allegations in closely watched legal dispute
The High Court has granted anonymity to a barrister facing allegations of sexual assault and harassment while allowing a claimant additional time to amend her case after a judge found significant deficiencies in the pleadings. In a judgment handed down on 8 May 2026, Mrs Justice Heather Williams ruled that the defendant, identified only as “NXT”, should remain anonymous because of the potentially severe impact the allegations could have on his reputation and legal career.
The claimant, referred to as “BPA”, alleges that the barrister subjected her to non-consensual sexual intercourse in October 2022 and later engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour. The claim also includes allegations of harassment and seeks damages for psychiatric injury, homelessness, loss of business income and disruption to education.
The defendant denies the allegations and applied to strike out the claim or obtain summary judgment, arguing that the particulars of the claim were vague, incoherent and unsupported by sufficient evidence. The court heard that the claimant had also reported the allegations to the police and the Bar Standards Board. The judgment stated that police took no further action after interviewing the defendant in March 2023, while the Bar Standards Board later closed its investigation after the claimant did not provide supporting evidence.
Justice Williams ruled that parts of the claim should be struck out, including allegations relating to breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998, coercive control as a standalone tort, and alleged breaches of professional duties owed as a barrister. However, the judge declined to strike out the entire case at this stage. Instead, the claimant was given four weeks to file amended particulars of claim and an amended schedule of loss addressing the deficiencies identified by the court. The claimant was also granted eight weeks to provide a medical report supporting claims of psychiatric injury.
The judgment stated that the existing pleadings failed to provide sufficient detail about the alleged incidents, including dates, locations and the conduct relied upon for the harassment claim. The court also found the financial loss claims lacked an adequate explanation.
Justice Williams said anonymity for the defendant was justified because the allegations were extremely serious and publicity could cause “significant and irreparable” damage to his career and livelihood. The judge also noted that no properly pleaded claim had yet been established and that the claimant already benefits from statutory anonymity protections under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The applications to strike out the remaining claims and for summary judgment were adjourned pending the claimant’s amended filings.