(1) No. It had already been agreed that Mrs Shaista Qureshi would give her evidence via live link from her home. An explanation and evidence were required as to why she was now unable to do so. In any case, C was able to attend and give evidence, was represented, and had another witness (Mr Durrani) who was available and able to give direct evidence on the key issue.
As to C’s other grounds for seeking an adjournment:
(a) The additional disclosure provided by NVTV after the deadline could be dealt with by cross-examination and during submissions. The Court could consider the weight to be given to the additional evidence, bearing in mind the late disclosure.
(b) C’s need to consider material that had been provided to him overnight by third party sources was not a proper basis to grant an adjournment.
(2) No. Murray J accepted the evidence given by Mr Alam, Mr Abharani (Head of Transmissions at ARY) and Mr Siddiqui (Ticker Desk Controller at ARY) on the material elements of NVTV’s case. Namely:
(a) Mr Alam had given “clear and consistent evidence” about his instructions to ARY not to broadcast the Relevant Bulletin, which he took pursuant to NVTV’s written policy.
(b) There was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the channel logs (a chronological record of broadcast items) and “as run” logs (logs generated by the servers identifying what was actually shown on air). The channel log for 17 September 2018 was annotated with instructions such as: “advised no names to go on air” and “instructed not to mention names on-air”. The “as run” log on 18 September 2018 at 02:12 GMT stated that New Vision was on a “commercial/promo break”.
(c) Although NVTV had not been able to locate a recording of the broadcast at 2:12 GMT, the recordings that were available did not name C and were therefore consistent with NVTV’s case. Although C was named in the tickers shown at 4:20 GMT, NVTV had provided a plausible explanation for this (a technical error).
Second, Mr Durrani had most likely fallen prey to the unconscious influence of the pressure of litigation on his recollection: see R (Dutta) v GMC  EWHC 1974 (Admin) at -. Mr Durrani’s evidence that “just after 2am… the news went crazy naming Farhan” was “implausible” – C’s name had been connected with the story on multiple Pakistani news sources available in the UK for several hours before that time. It is more likely than not that Mr Durrani became aware at some time on the evening of 17 September 2018 of the fact that C was being named on various Pakistani news sources available in the UK.
Third, assuming that Mr Durrani’s witness statement was referring to BST (which applied at that time) not GMT, the reference to “2am” in his witness statement was inconsistent with C’s case. C was alleging that the Relevant Bulletin was broadcast at 3:12 BST (2:12 GMT). However, Murray J noted that the question as to time zone was not put to C.
Fourth, although Mrs Shaista Qureshi was not available to give evidence, Murray J had read her witness statement and considered it unlikely that he would have reached a different conclusion with the benefit of her evidence. Her evidence was likely to have suffered the same effect of litigation bias as Mr Durrani’s evidence – especially as Mr Durrani and Mrs Shaista Qureshi were living in the same household and were both close relatives of C.