Carruthers Law

Damages Awards in Defamation Claims.

A successful claimant in a defamation claim is entitled to recover, as general damages, a sum which will compensate them for the wrong suffered. That sum must compensate them for the damage to their reputation, vindicate their good name and take account of the distress and humiliation which the publication has caused.

In assessing damages, the most important factor is the seriousness of the libel. The more closely it touches their personal integrity, professional reputation and the core attributes of their personality, the more serious it is likely to be.

The extent of publication is important. A libel published to millions in a national newspaper has a much  greater potential to cause damage than one published to a few people.

An award of damages enables the claimant to vindicate their reputation. The significance of this is much greater in a case where the defendant continues to assert the truth of the statement and refuses to retract it or fails to provide an apology, than in a case where the defendant acknowledges the falseness and apologises for the publication.

Compensatory damages may compensate for additional injury caused to the  feelings by the conduct of the action by the defendant, such as when that person persists in asserting the publication was true, or refuses to apologise, or cross-examines the claimant in a very damaging or insulting way.

The initial measure of damages is the amount that would restore the claimant to the position they would have enjoyed had they not been defamed.

The existence and scale of any harm to reputation may be established by evidence or inferred. Evidence that tends to show as a fact a person was shunned, avoided, or taunted will be relevant.

The impact of a libel on a person’s reputation can be affected by:

• Their position if they are a senior person such as a doctor.
• The extent to which the publisher of the defamatory statement is authoritative and credible. The person may be someone known to be well placed to know the facts and as such believable, or they may appear to be unreliable.
• The identities of the publishees is important. Publication to family, friends or work colleagues may be more harmful than that circulated to strangers. Although, those close to a claimant may be less likely to believe what has been stated.
• The propensity to percolate particularly because of the internet and social media.
• Damages may be aggravated if the defendant acts maliciously.

A person can only be compensated for injury to the reputation they had at the time of publication. If that person already had a bad reputation which is relevant to the defamation, that will reduce the harm, and reduce the damages, sometimes to zero.

Other factors may reduce or mitigate damages such as directly relevant background context. To be successful, the proposed evidence will need to have some connection to the subject matter of the defamatory statement. The more different the subject matter of the evidence is to the defamatory statement, and the further away in time, the less likely it is to be successful.

An offer of amends will reduce the award as will a reasoned judgment. Any award also needs to be proportionate and is limited by the Human Rights Act 1998.

Recent Libel Damages awards.

The current ceiling for damages awards in libel actions is £350,000 as per Nicklin J in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 1797. These claims do not attract high value settlements as the purpose is to achieve restoration to your reputation and vindication, which can be achieved by way of apology or, if following a trial, a reasoned judgment which you can point to, with damages as only a part of the remedies available.

Blake & Anor v Fox [2024] EWHC 956 (KB)

The background to the damages decision is set out in the liability judgment: Blake v Fox EWHC 146 (KB); E.M.L.R. 6. The first claimant was a trustee and deputy chair of the LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall, and the CEO of a social enterprise. The second claimant was an entertainer. The defendant was an actor. The claimants succeeded in a libel claim over two tweets in which the defendant called them paedophiles, his ‘reply to attack’ qualified privilege defence failing at trial. Collins Rice J awarded the claimants £90,000 damages each. The allegation was exceptionally grave and cruel. Publication was massive, given the defendant’s approximately 250,000 Twitter followers and the startling nature of the allegations, which were made in the context of a response to earlier provocative remarks by him, picked up in national media, and widely discussed on social media. The claimants’ vulnerability to the libel’s reputational harm was exacerbated by their national profile on LGBTQ+ issues. Operating in the defendant’s favour were his taking down of the tweets and non-repetition of the libel, and his going at least some way to distance himself from it.

 

Wilson v Mendelsohn & Ors [2024] EWHC 821 (KB)

The claimant, James Wilson, a legal academic and non-practising solicitor, brought an action involving claims in libel, misuse of private information, harassment, and data protection. The first and second defendants were university lecturers, and the third defendant was a musician. The libel claim centred around a screenshot of a Facebook post taken by the first defendant, James Mendelsohn, and sent to the second defendant, Dr Peter Newbon, who published it in a series of four tweets. The third defendant, Edward Cantor, republished one of these tweets. The screenshot and the subsequent publications alleged that the claimant had engaged in harassing, unwarranted, and worrying conduct, described as that of a “weirdo and freak,” when objecting to a mother leaving her car engine running outside a school. The claimant was accused of banging on the car window, being very rude, and taking and retaining pictures of the mother, her car, and her daughter.

The libel claim against the second defendant lapsed upon his death, and his estate settled the other claims prior to trial. At trial, the defences of truth and honest opinion put forward by the first and third defendants failed.

HH Richard Parkes KC awarded £22,500 in global damages against the first defendant, James Mendelsohn. This amount was in respect of his liability for the republication of the screenshot by the second defendant, Dr Peter Newbon, and for the first defendant’s disclosure to and the publication by the second defendant of private information concerning workplace complaints against the claimant, James Wilson, and their investigation and resolution.

Additionally, the judge awarded £7,500 in libel damages against the first and third defendants, James Mendelsohn and Edward Cantor, as joint tortfeasors in relation to the third defendant’s republication of the screenshot.

In assessing the damages for libel, the extent of publication was a very important factor. The second defendant’s tweets were probably seen by publishees running well into four figures, and the third defendant’s tweet by several hundred people. It was likely that many of these publishees were academics who knew or knew of the claimant. The distress caused to the claimant was also considered significant. Furthermore, the wording of an online crowdfunding appeal by the defendants and a related tweet by the first defendant amounted to aggravating conduct, which was reflected in the awards.

 

Schofield v Politicalite Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 543 (KB)

The claimant, Simon Schofield, is an award-winning theatrical producer, actor, and creative director, known for his roles in various West End productions. The first defendant, Politicalite Ltd, is the publisher of an influential online news website popular among those in the UK entertainment and media industries. The second defendant, Jordan Kendall, is the founder and sole director of Politicalite Ltd, and serves as the website’s Editor-in-Chief.

The case arose from an article published on the website on 24 September 2022, which alleged that Schofield was involved in grooming children or was an accomplice to someone who did so. The article claimed that through his role in the theatre and entertainment industry, Schofield built relationships with children or young adults to manipulate, exploit, or abuse them. Schofield obtained default judgment in claims of libel, malicious falsehood, and misuse of private information.

Mrs Justice Steyn awarded Schofield a global sum of £90,000 in damages. The assessment of damages was primarily based on the libel claim, with adjustments made to account for factors emerging from the successful malicious falsehood and misuse of private information claims. The damages were awarded as a single global sum due to the complete overlap between the matters relied on.

The article’s imputation was deemed inherently very serious, with a primary readership likely around 20,000-30,000. The “grapevine effect” significantly increased the extent of the article’s allegations, leading to widespread dissemination and exacerbating the damage and distress caused to Schofield.

Several aggravating factors contributed to the severity of the damages. These included the defendants’ failure to contact Schofield prior to publication, the repetition of the allegations in abusive terms, and the demand for money to remove the article. Additionally, the defendants’ failure to attend the remedies hearing and their abusive responses to pre-action correspondence further exacerbated the harm and distress experienced by Schofield.

In summary, the damages were calculated to compensate for the injury to Schofield’s reputation, vindicate his good name, and account for the distress, hurt, and humiliation caused by the defamatory publication. The award also aimed to reflect the serious nature of the allegations and the extensive publication of the false claims.

The court also granted an injunction to restrain further publication of the defamatory content and ordered the defendants to publish a summary of the judgment on their website and social media.

 

Crosbie v Ley [2023] EWHC 2626 (KB)

In the case of Crosbie v Ley, both the claimant and the defendant were therapists/counsellors and former friends. The claimant initiated legal action against the defendant for passing off. In response, the defendant counterclaimed for defamation, harassment, and data protection breaches. The defamation claim centred on four online publications by the claimant, including posts on Facebook and Twitter, which accused the defendant of fraud and being a danger to clients. The harassment claim was based on these and other publications over a four-year period, forming part of a public campaign against the defendant. This campaign included personal abuse, threats of violence, and the publication of the defendant’s mobile phone number on a GoFundMe page. The claimant’s passing off claim was dismissed as totally without merit, while the defendant’s defamation and harassment claims were successful, rendering the data protection claim unnecessary.

Julian Knowles J awarded the defendant £75,000 in general damages for defamation and harassment, which included a component of aggravated damages. The calculation of compensatory damages for defamation took into account several key factors:

Seriousness of the Allegations: The allegations were particularly serious given the defendant’s profession as a therapist/counsellor. Accusations of fraud and being a danger to clients struck at the heart of the defendant’s professional reputation and integrity.

Targeting of the Therapist and Counsellor Community: The claimant specifically targeted the therapist and counsellor community with the defamatory statements. This community is crucial to the defendant’s professional standing and reputation.

Extent of Publication: The defamatory statements were published widely, including on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. This extensive publication meant that the allegations reached a significant audience, including a broader audience among therapists.

Defendant’s Anger and Distress: The defamatory statements caused significant anger and distress to the defendant. The emotional impact of the allegations was a critical factor in determining the quantum of damages.

Several aggravating features further influenced the damages awarded:

Totally Without Merit Passing Off Claim: The claimant’s passing off claim was dismissed as totally without merit, indicating a lack of any reasonable basis for the claim.

False and Exaggerated Claims: The claimant made varying false and exaggerated claims for losses in correspondence and in the Particulars of Claim. These claims were intended to intimidate the defendant.

Inclusion of Irrelevant Personal Evidence: The claimant included irrelevant personal evidence about the defendant in an attempt to intimidate her. This conduct was considered aggravating and contributed to the overall damages awarded.

Aaronson v Stones [2023] EWHC 2399 (KB)

The case of Aaronson v Stones involved a US-based entrepreneur, Jack Aaronson, who worked in the gay pornography industry. The defendant, Marcus Stones, domiciled in England and Wales, had also worked in the same industry. Aaronson sued Stones for libel over ten tweets and a YouTube video that accused Aaronson of raping several men, thereby labelling him a serial rapist. The allegations were published when Stones had approximately 144,000 Twitter followers. Stones’ defences of truth and publication on a matter of public interest failed at trial.

Mr Justice Julian Knowles awarded Aaronson £110,000 in damages, which included an amount for aggravation. The calculation of damages took into account several factors:

Seriousness of the Allegations: The allegations against Aaronson were extremely serious, accusing him of multiple rapes. Such grave accusations significantly harmed Aaronson’s reputation, both personally and professionally.

Extent of Publication: The defamatory statements were widely disseminated, reaching a large audience due to Stones’ substantial following on Twitter. This extensive publication exacerbated the damage to Aaronson’s reputation.

Impact on Reputation and Well-being: The defamatory statements had a direct and severe impact on Aaronson’s reputation, business, and mental well-being. The court recognized the profound distress and harm caused by these false allegations.

Lack of Evidence: The court noted that the allegations were unevidenced, and Stones knew this. The baseless nature of the accusations further aggravated the harm caused to Aaronson.

Aggravated Damages: The award included an amount for aggravated damages. This was due to Stones’ conduct, which was found to be malicious and intended to cause maximum harm to Aaronson. Stones’ refusal to retract the statements or apologize also contributed to the aggravation.

The judgement also highlighted the Defendant’s failure to verify the allegations and the lack of any meaningful opportunity given to the Claimant to respond to the accusations. The Defendant’s conduct during the trial, including the repetition of defamatory allegations and the failure to admit the falsity of the claims, further aggravated the damages.

In summary, the damages awarded to Aaronson were calculated based on the gravity of the defamatory statements, the wide extent of their publication, the significant impact on Aaronson’s reputation and well-being, the lack of evidence supporting the allegations, and the aggravating conduct of Stones. The total award of £110,000 aimed to compensate Aaronson for the harm suffered and to vindicate his reputation.

 

Packham v Wightman & Ors [2023] EWHC 1256 (KB)

The claimant, a naturalist, television presenter, and campaigner, initiated libel proceedings against three defendants associated with an online publication called Country Squire Magazine. The case revolved around articles published on the magazine’s website, two online videos, and tweets containing text and links to one of the articles or videos. The publications accused the claimant of dishonesty in relation to fundraising initiatives aimed at relocating five tigers and supporting a wildlife sanctuary, as well as a statement made by the claimant alleging that gamekeepers on Scottish estates had burned peat during the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference.

The claimant’s claims against the first and second defendants, who were respectively the online publication’s editor and an IT consultant, were successful. Mr Justice Saini awarded damages totalling £90,000 against the two defendants. The breakdown of the damages is as follows:

£75,000 for the dishonesty allegation about the tigers: This substantial component of the damages reflected several factors:

The extent of publication: The allegations were widely disseminated through the magazine’s website, videos, and tweets, reaching a significant audience.

The nature of the allegations: The accusations of dishonesty were serious and damaging to the claimant’s reputation, particularly given his public profile as a naturalist and television presenter.

The attempt to seek the claimant’s dismissal from the BBC: The defendants’ actions included efforts to have the claimant dismissed from his role at the BBC, further exacerbating the harm caused.

The effect on the claimant: The allegations had a profound impact on the claimant, causing distress and damage to his professional and personal life.

Aggravating conduct by the first and second defendants: The defendants’ behaviour throughout the proceedings, including their refusal to retract the allegations and their conduct during the trial, contributed to the aggravation of the damages awarded.£10,000 for the wildlife sanctuary dishonesty allegation: This amount was awarded for the specific allegation that the claimant had been dishonest in relation to fundraising for a wildlife sanctuary. The seriousness of the accusation and its impact on the claimant’s reputation were key factors in determining this component of the damages.£5,000 for the peat-burning dishonesty allegation: The final component of the damages was awarded for the allegation that the claimant had lied about gamekeepers burning peat during the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference. Although this allegation was less serious than the others, it still warranted compensation due to its defamatory nature and the harm it caused to the claimant’s reputation.In summary, the total damages of £90,000 were calculated based on the severity of the allegations, the extent of their publication, the impact on the claimant, and the aggravating conduct of the defendants.

 

Parkes v Hall & Anor [2023] EWHC 794 (KB)

The case of Parkes v Hall involved the claimant, Simon Parkes, who founded a spiritual group called Connecting Consciousness. The two defendants, Toby Hall and Stephen Earnshaw (also known as Amora Steve Melchizadek), were former members of this group. Mr. Parkes brought legal proceedings against them for defamation, harassment, breach of data protection, and misuse of private information. These claims were based on nine videos published online on YouTube and the Brighteon platform, as well as four emails sent by the defendants. The defendants’ defences were struck out, and judgment was ordered in favour of the claimant. Prior to the disposal hearing, Mr. Parkes and Mr. Hall reached a settlement.

Mr. Justice Murray awarded a total of £35,000 in damages against the second defendant, Mr. Earnshaw, for 11 of the publications. This award covered the heads of damage for defamation, harassment, and misuse of private information, including aggravation. The allegations made in the publications were extremely serious, involving accusations of rape, fraud, membership in a cult practising paedophilia and satanic rituals, illicit surveillance, and physical attacks. The extent of publication was significant, reaching hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals. There was also evidence that the claimant’s movement, Connecting Consciousness, had lost members as a result of these publications.

The calculation of damages took into account the gravity of the allegations, the extent of publication, and the distress caused to Mr. Parkes and his family. The award aimed to compensate for the harm to Mr. Parkes’s reputation, the distress and injury to his feelings, and the ongoing impact on his spiritual group. Additionally, the award included aggravated damages due to the defendants’ unreasonable conduct, such as their failure to apologise and their persistent campaign of harassment.

 

Parsons v Garnett & Ors [2022] EWHC 3017 (KB)

The claimant, a businessman and country landowner in Cumbria, brought a case against the first and second defendants, a married couple who were long-standing tenant farmers of the claimant. The third defendant, their daughter, also worked on the family farm. The claimant obtained a default judgment in libel and summary relief under section 9 of the Defamation Act 1996 against the first and second defendants for an anonymous ‘poison pen’ letter circulated in the local village. The third defendant was also found liable for publishing the same letter to a different audience on the same date. The letter contained a reference to a public figure associated with rumours of links to a convicted child-abuser. Additionally, the claimant secured a default judgment against the first and second defendants for harassment due to a series of anonymous publications that impugned his business practices and ethics, attacked his family, and accused him of being an adulterer, a sexual exploiter, and a predatory abuser of a vulnerable woman.

In response to submissions made at the hearing on a provisional basis regarding the remedy, Collins Rice J awarded the maximum £10,000 permissible under the summary procedure for the defamation claims. This amount was divided as follows: £8,000 jointly and severally against the first and second defendants, and £2,000 against the third defendant. Additionally, the judge awarded harassment damages of £12,000, to be paid jointly and severally by the first and second defendants.

The calculation of damages took into account the severity of the defamatory statements and the harassment, the impact on the claimant’s reputation and personal life, and the need to provide a deterrent against such conduct. The maximum amount permissible under the summary procedure was awarded to reflect the gravity of the offences and the harm caused to the claimant.

 

Gooderson v Qureshi [2022] EWHC 2977 (KB)

In the case of Gooderson v Qureshi, the claimant, who was involved in the estate and property management business, initiated libel proceedings against the defendant over twenty-one posts published on various websites, including Google Reviews. These posts followed a dispute over the sale of two properties and the claimant’s refusal to refund the defendant’s deposit. The defendant was debarred from defending the proceedings due to multiple breaches of court orders. The trial focused on whether the claimant could prove the necessary elements of his claim. The claimant succeeded in relation to 20 of the posts, which included allegations that he was dishonest, untrustworthy, exploited customers, lacked scruples, was unprofessional, and provided poor services.

Heather Williams J awarded the claimant £42,500 in damages, including for the defendant’s aggravation. The majority of the posts were grave libels, made as part of a systematic and targeted campaign against the claimant. They appeared on five different websites, including local, national, and industry-specific platforms. These posts negatively impacted parties with whom the claimant was doing business and caused him significant hurt and distress. Furthermore, the defendant refused to accept responsibility for the posts or properly apologise for them.

The damages were calculated based on several factors:

Seriousness of the Allegations: The posts contained serious allegations that the claimant was dishonest, untrustworthy, and exploited customers. These grave libels were made as part of a targeted campaign against the claimant.
Reputation Harm: The posts appeared on multiple websites, reaching a wide audience, including local, national, and industry-specific platforms. This widespread publication caused significant harm to the claimant’s reputation.
Impact on Business Relationships: The posts negatively impacted parties with whom the claimant was doing business, leading to a loss of business opportunities and causing great hurt and distress to the claimant.
Lack of Retraction or Apology: The defendant refused to accept responsibility for the posts or properly apologise for them, which further aggravated the situation and influenced the calculation of damages.
Defendant’s Conduct: The defendant’s multiple breaches of court orders and the systematic and targeted nature of the campaign against the claimant were considered aggravating factors in the calculation of damages.
In conclusion, the £42,500 in damages awarded to the claimant reflected the seriousness of the allegations, the harm caused to his reputation, the widespread publication, and the aggravating features of the defendant’s conduct.

 

Riley v Sivier [2022] EWHC 2891 (KB)

In the case of Riley v Sivier, the claimant, a television presenter, initiated libel proceedings against the defendant, a blogger, over an article published on the defendant’s website. The article alleged that the claimant had engaged in a campaign of online abuse and harassment against a 16-year-old girl, inciting the claimant’s Twitter followers to make death threats towards her. It further claimed that the claimant had behaved hypocritically by complaining about suffering online abuse and death threats, and had acted recklessly, irresponsibly, and obscenely. The defendant’s defences of truth and honest opinion were struck out by Collins Rice J on 20th January 2021.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal against the order striking out the public interest defence, and the public interest defence was assessed at trial. Steyn J awarded the claimant £50,000 in damages. The allegation was a serious one, made against a public figure, and the publication was substantial, with approximately 50,000 people having read the article. The defendant continued to publish the article without any retraction, amendment, or apology. Aggravating features included the defendant’s persistence in maintaining the truth of his allegations even after the Court of Appeal had upheld the summary dismissal of his truth defence. The damages were calculated based on several factors:

Seriousness of the Allegation: The accusation that the claimant had engaged in and supported a campaign of online abuse and harassment was a fresh and grave allegation that had not previously been made. It would have caused readers to think worse of the claimant.

Reputation Harm: The claimant did not have a pre-existing bad reputation in the relevant sector, and the article caused serious harm to her reputation. The libel was grave, having been published to about 50,000 people, and the nature of the accusation, combined with the claimant’s role as a well-known television presenter, meant that the libel was likely to have spread to many more people beyond those who had read the article.

Lack of Retraction or Apology: The defendant had not taken the article off the internet, retracted any of the allegations, or apologised for it. This lack of retraction or apology was an aggravating feature that contributed to the calculation of damages.

Defendant’s Conduct: The defendant’s persistence in maintaining the truth of his allegations, even after the Court of Appeal had upheld the summary dismissal of his truth defence, further aggravated the situation and influenced the calculation of damages.

In conclusion, the £50,000 in damages awarded to the claimant reflected the seriousness of the allegation, the harm caused to her reputation, the substantial publication, and the aggravating features of the defendant’s conduct.

 

Unite the Union v Freitas [2022] EWHC 666 (QB)

The case involves a former British Airways cabin staff member, Mr Freitas, who was also a member of the British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association (BASSA) branch of the claimant trade union, Unite the Union. In the summer of 2020, BASSA entered negotiations with British Airways over a proposed large-scale redundancy exercise due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the travel industry. Mr Freitas took voluntary redundancy in August 2020 and joined a Facebook group of approximately 1,700 former BA cabin crew who also took voluntary redundancy around this time.

In January 2021, Unite brought a claim in libel and harassment against Mr Freitas for a post he published on his own Facebook page on 7th November 2020, and a series of 23 posts published to the Facebook group between November 2020 and January 2021. The posts alleged that Unite had entrusted the leadership of its BASSA branch to paedophiles and/or child sex offenders, and that it operated or condoned the operation of the branch as a criminal enterprise engaged in fraud, corruption, and paedophilia. Mr Freitas acknowledged the posts were unacceptable, apologised, and removed them, citing his diabetes and associated mood swings as an explanation for his behaviour. However, he subsequently disengaged from the matter.

The court entered summary judgment for Unite on 8th October 2021 and awarded general damages of £50,000. The damages were calculated based on several factors:

Gravity of the Allegations: The allegations were of systematic and sustained criminal misconduct, including fraud, corruption, and paedophilia, which impugned the integrity of Unite and its leadership. These were considered grave allegations.

Extent of Publication: The posts were published to a Facebook group of 1,700 former BA cabin crew and received extensive circulation and republication within that community and beyond. The allegations spread to remaining BA colleagues and BASSA staff, making them impossible to ignore in the workplace.

Reputational Harm: Unite and BASSA depend on their reputation to attract and retain members, especially during major negotiations. The posts had a corrosive effect on Unite’s reputation, making it difficult for BASSA office-holders to perform their union functions during important negotiations.

Character of the Campaign: The posts had the character of a coherent and persistent campaign of denigration. Mr Freitas implied he had inside knowledge from law enforcement agencies, giving the allegations an authoritative tone.

Impact on Individuals: The court accepted that the posts caused distress and humiliation to three BASSA office-holders, impacting their ability to perform their union functions.

Defendant’s Conduct: Although Mr Freitas removed the posts and apologised, he failed to engage constructively to make amends, obliging Unite to pursue litigation for vindication.

The sum awarded was intended to compensate Unite for injury to reputation, ensure adequate vindication, and counter Mr Freitas’s campaign. The court also granted an injunction to prevent Mr Freitas from repeating the libel.

 

Summerfield Browne Ltd v Waymouth (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 85 (QB)

The claimant, Summerfield Browne Limited, is a firm of solicitors. The defendant, Philip James Waymouth, was a former client of the firm. Dissatisfied with the service he received, the defendant posted a review on the Trust Pilot website, describing the claimant firm as “a total waste of money” and “another scam solicitor”. This led to a defamation claim by the claimant.

Master David Cook presided over the case and granted summary judgment in favour of the claimant, striking out the defendant’s defences. The court awarded general damages of £25,000 to the claimant. The allegation of dishonesty against a solicitors’ firm was deemed a serious matter, likely to deter potential clients from engaging the firm’s services. Given that the claimant relied heavily on the internet to generate enquiries, the court accepted that the defamatory review would have caused a significant number of potential clients to be deterred, resulting in financial loss for a period of at least three to four months.

The calculation of the damages took into account several factors:

The seriousness of the defamatory statements, which accused the firm of dishonesty and fraud.
The impact on the claimant’s reputation and the likelihood of deterring potential clients.
The financial loss suffered by the claimant due to the reduction in enquiries and instructions following the publication of the review.
The need for the damages to serve the purpose of vindication, restoring the claimant’s reputation.
In addition to the general damages, the court also considered the claimant’s evidence of a measurable decline in the number of enquiries following the publication of the defamatory review. Although the claim for special damages of £300 per day was not fully substantiated with detailed financial evidence, the court acknowledged that the defamatory review had caused some financial loss to the claimant.

 

Glenn v Kline [2021] EWHC 468 (QB)

In the case of Glenn v Kline, the claimant, Martin Richard Glenn, was the Chief Executive Officer of the Football Association (FA). The defendant, Craig Kline, was described as a US-qualified lawyer and had previously held positions as the Assistant Director of Football and Director of Statistical Research at Fulham Football Club. Glenn successfully sued Kline for libel and harassment due to a series of defamatory publications on Twitter and via email. Kline’s Twitter account had approximately 1,700 followers, including several journalists.

Richard Spearman QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen’s Bench Division, awarded Glenn a total of £100,000 in damages. This sum was divided into two parts: £25,000 for harassment from November 2018 to the end of February 2019, and £75,000 for libel and harassment from 1st May 2019 onwards, which included £10,000 in aggravated damages.

The judge considered the case to be of the utmost seriousness. The publications made by Kline included accusations that Glenn was involved in child abuse, fraud, corruption, bribery, conspiracy, and money-laundering, and that he had covered up racism and misogyny. Kline’s declared credentials and assertions of direct knowledge of the alleged facts lent credibility to his charges. The significant primary readership of Kline’s Twitter account, combined with the public setting of the account, meant that anyone using Twitter could read the tweets, which remained online for an extended period. National news organisations reported on the allegations, and Glenn’s colleagues and business contacts questioned him about them. This suggested that the libels were likely to have had a very significant impact on Glenn’s reputation and personal life.

The damages were calculated based on the gravity of the allegations, the extent of their publication, and the distress and harm caused to Glenn. The £25,000 awarded for harassment covered the period from November 2018 to the end of February 2019, reflecting the serious and prolonged nature of the harassment. The £75,000 awarded for libel and harassment from 1st May 2019 onwards included £10,000 in aggravated damages, recognising the particularly malicious and vindictive nature of Kline’s actions during this period.

 

Mirza & Anor v Ali & Ors [2021] EWHC 1494 (QB)

The case of Mirza v Ali involved two claimants: the first claimant, Rafaqat Mirza, a digital entrepreneur of Canadian and British Pakistani heritage, widely referred to as ‘Rocky’, and the second claimant, Mr Ashfaq Siddique, a retired Metropolitan Police officer of Pakistani heritage. The claimants brought a libel claim against three individuals due to online publications that accused them of dishonesty in their business dealings, specifically alleging involvement in a Ponzi scheme, tax evasion, and withholding refunds. These publications were intended to damage their reputations and were disseminated widely within their community. The defendants did not defend their allegations, retract them, apologise, or undertake not to publish them again.

Master Thornett awarded the claimants general damages of £52,500 each. This amount was divided as follows:

£17,500 each against the first defendant: This portion of the damages was awarded due to the specific defamatory publications made by the first defendant, which were found to be particularly damaging to the claimants’ reputations.
£35,000 each against the second and third defendants jointly and severally: This portion was awarded due to the combined defamatory actions of the second and third defendants, who collaborated in publishing false and damaging information about the claimants.
The claim against the fourth defendant was settled before the damages assessment hearing. The seriousness of the allegations and the reasonable inference that they had been widely disseminated within the claimants’ community contributed to the calculation of the damages. The lack of defence, retraction, apology, or undertaking from the defendants further justified the awarded amounts.

 

Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon [2021] EWHC 2008 (QB)

The claimant, Jamal Hijazi, was a young adult of Syrian background. At the age of 15, he was involved in an altercation with another boy at his school in Huddersfield. This incident was recorded and the video was shared among pupils, eventually going viral on social media. The viral video generated supportive comments and media coverage for the claimant. The defendant, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, a well-known public figure on the political right, posted two videos on Facebook regarding the fight. The first video implied that the claimant had, as part of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl causing her significant injuries, and had threatened to stab another child. The second video suggested that the claimant had, as part of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl causing her serious injuries. Following a trial, the claimant succeeded in his libel action.

Nicklin J awarded general damages of £100,000 to the claimant. The most significant element considered in the award was the need for vindication. Throughout the proceedings and at trial, the defendant maintained the truth of the serious allegations made, rather than publicly withdrawing or apologising for them. These allegations were serious, amounting to criminal behaviour if true, and the language used by the defendant was intended to inflame the situation. The impact on the claimant was severe, including his family being forced to relocate. The publication of both videos had a significant detrimental effect on the claimant’s reputation and well-being. The damages were calculated to compensate for the harm to the claimant’s reputation, the distress and hurt caused, and the need to vindicate the claimant’s good name.

 

Sahota v Middlesex Broadcasting Corp Ltd [2021] EWHC 3363 (QB)

The claimant, Mr Amrik Singh Sahota, is a successful businessman and a prominent member of the British Asian community in the West Midlands. He is also an advocate for Khalistan, a project for an autonomous state for Sikhs in the Punjab. The first defendant, Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Limited, operated a TV programme called Gurdwara Miri Piri, a Punjabi-language news and current affairs series broadcast weekly on Midlands Asian Television National (MATV). Mr Sahota brought libel proceedings against the defendants over a programme in this series.

The episode, presented by the second defendant in conversation with the third defendant, contained three defamatory statements about Mr Sahota. These statements alleged that he was not a true supporter of Khalistani independence and was a hireling whose allegiance could be bought, that he had deceived and misled people by attending a protest outside the Indian High Commission, and that he had risked dividing the Sikh community and involving Sikhs in violence, hatred, and terrorism by standing with Kashmiri terrorists and through his ignorance of Sikh history.

The Honourable Mrs Justice Collins Rice awarded Mr Sahota general damages of £60,000. The allegations were considered to be of significant gravity and had been published substantially within the jurisdiction, impacting how Mr Sahota’s immediate acquaintances viewed him. Although the programme had a modest 82 views on YouTube over almost four years, there was always a risk of grapevine dissemination. The defamatory statements caused Mr Sahota great personal distress and adversely affected his family’s wellbeing, particularly his wife’s.

The award also took into account the fact that the programme had been deliberately planned around the topic of Mr Sahota’s reputation and had been broadcast without giving him prior notice or any opportunity to present his side of the story. Additionally, the defamatory statements continued to be published online at the time of the trial, and Mr Sahota had never received a retraction or apology. The defendants had neither withdrawn nor substantiated their defences.

The calculation of the damages considered the gravity of the allegations, the extent of their publication, and the personal distress caused to Mr Sahota. The award aimed to compensate for the injury to Mr Sahota’s reputation and feelings, providing a visible sign of vindication and restoring his good name.

In Riley v Murray [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB); [2022] E.M.L.R. 8 the claimant, a television presenter, brought a libel action against the defendant, who was associated with Jeremy Corbyn MP. The libel concerned a tweet from March 2019, where the defendant alleged that the claimant was dangerous,unintelligent and potentially inciting violence against Mr Corbyn. The court, under the direction of Nicklin J, dismissed the defendant’s defences of truth, honest opinion, and public interest. The claimant was awarded £10,000 in general damages. The tweet reached an audience, taking a snapshot at midnight following the defendant’s Tweet, of 94 responses, 661 re-Tweets and 1,764 likes. The judge thought although not in the league of mainstream media publications, it was evidence of significant publication. The court took into account the provocative nature of the claimant’s initial tweet when determining the damages. The subsequent appeal against Nicklin J’s rejection of the statutory defences, but not damages by the defendant was dismissed.

In Davies v Carter [2021] EWHC 3021 (QB) the claimant, employed in marketing, sued the defendant for libel and harassment. The defendant, under a misconception that the claimant was involved in a website project he found unsatisfactory, launched a protracted social media campaign. This included serious allegations against the claimant on various platforms like Twitter(X) and LinkedIn. The allegations involved financial misconduct and deceptive business practices. Saini J awarded the claimant £10,000 for libel, a low award, but the injury to feelings element of the award was covered by the separate £25,000 award made in relation to the defendant’s harassment recognising the severity, persistence, and personal nature of the defamation.

In Wozniak v Randall [2021] EWHC 2341 (QB) Dr Wozniak and Ms Kelly from Rosgill, Cumbria, faced defamatory statements from the defendant who posted articles on a website about a local property dispute. The articles falsely labelled them ‘offensive individuals’, ‘townies’, ‘social pariahs’ and ‘liars, thieves and bullies’.  Soole J awarded £7,500 each to the claimants, emphasising the defamation’s impact in a small community and the defendant’s insistence on the truthfulness of the publications during the trial.

“The website is addressed to a small number of people, on the evidence perhaps 50 or so, but on Ms Randall’s own account extending beyond Rosgill to Bampton and Shap. As against the small publication, I weigh the very fact of its locality and the likely consequent intensity of its effect on the publishees and the claimants. This is then magnified by Ms Randall’s persistence in pursuing these allegations through the trial.”

In Aslani v Sobierajska [2021] EWHC 2127 (QB) the claimant, a plastic surgeon and clinic CEO in Spain, sued the defendant, a social media influencer and former patient, for libel. The defendant’s online posts falsely accused the claimant of gross negligence, endangering patients, and fraudulent business practices. The court awarded £40,000 in general damages, considering the influential nature of the platforms posted on, the potential reach of the publications, and the significant harm to the claimant’s professional reputation and business.15 people had commented on the publications to the claimant and/or his employees; the defendant had been in contact with prospective clients of the claimant; there had been a decrease in the claimant’s bookings; and 66 people interacted with the review on RealSelf, a website used by those contemplating surgery and specific surgeons. Six people did not proceed with surgery with the claimant.

In Blackledge v Person(s) Unknown [2021] EWHC 1994 (QB) the claimant, a distinguished academic and author specialising in politics and ethics, faced an online campaign of abuse. He initiated legal action for libel, harassment, and breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) against unidentified individuals. He also sought an order under section 13 of the Defamation Act 2013 requiring Google to remove the website hosting the blog. These persons accused him falsely in several blog articles of committing rape and other sexual assaults, covering up these crimes, and shaming the survivors. The claim also encompassed harassment via emails and tweets that shared these blog links, making similar accusations. In his judgment, Saini J awarded him £70,000 for libel and harassment. It was inferred that the articles reached hundreds to thousands of readers, with further “grapevine” publication evident. The claimant also gave evidence as to his distress, despair and shock at the allegations. The claimant did not seek additional compensation for the data protection claim. The articles in question, despite being entirely false, appeared well-researched and suggested the writers had firsthand knowledge of the claimant’s actions. An order for the blog to be removed from the internet was also made.

In XXXX (known as Hatchet) v Varma [2021] EWHC 1709 (QB) the claimant a feminist campaigner, who went by the pseudonym Jean Hatchet, due to concerns for her and her family’s safety arising from threats of violence (including sexual assault) for her campaigning work. She was an opponent of proposed legislation which would enable people to self-identify as being of a particular gender for legal purposes, and in that context a supporter of the rights of “biologically female” persons to have exclusive access to single-sex spaces. The defendant published two tweets

“ Now you know where @jeanhatchet’s fundraising has gone!” and “I raised this with her as my boss donated £1000 to her charity but the charity apparently only received a much smaller amount so she blocked me”.

The Claimants pleaded meaning accepted by Master Fontaine was that the claimant had dishonestly misappropriated charity funds and was guilty of theft. It was untrue. At that time, the defendant had 177 followers. There was evidence that the defamatory words had been retweeted and more recently disseminated. The claimant brought proceedings for libel and obtained judgment in default. Senior Master Fontaine awarded her £45,000 general damages, which included an element of aggravated damages in respect of the defendant’s failure to withdraw or make any apology for the publication. Though the claimant’s public reputation was largely limited to individuals in the campaigning groups that supported and opposed her campaigns, it was not a trivial libel.

In the case of Triad Group Plc v Makar [2020] EWHC 306 (QB) allegations published on Twitter about the claimant being involved in serious criminal activity were held to be both defamatory and had caused significant serious harm. In addition, the claimant brought a claim of harassment against the defendant which was also held to be serious. The claimant was awarded the sum of £60,000 in damages in relation to the libel and an additional £65,000 damages award in relation to the harassment claim.

In Gilham v MGN Ltd [2020] EWHC 2217 (QB) a teacher was reported incorrectly as having been found guilty of misconduct following a regulatory hearing. The allegation of misconduct related to physical assault against a primary school age child which was very serious. This had an impact upon his professional reputation. The article was printed in national newspapers as well as online. The claimant accepted an offer of amends. The final award by the court was £49,000, however in this matter less than 50% was deducted from the award based on the conduct of the defendants.

In Turley v Unite the union [2019] EWHC 3547 (QB) a claimant had been awarded the sum of £75,000 following trial. The claimant brought an action against the defendant who alleged online that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he had been dishonest and fraudulently joined the trade union in order to vote in its leadership election. The defendant continued to publish the article without apology. There was an aggravated damages sum awarded, although not separately in respect of the defendant’s conduct at trial claiming the claimant was dishonest without merit. The allegations were serious, amounting to criminal behaviour although the meaning of the publication was not of guilt, rather ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’. The libel was against a Member of Parliament and the matter involved political persuasion which added to the seriousness, thus the damages award.

In Doyle v Smith [2019] EMLR 347 a defendant alleged there were good reasons to suspect the claimant of fraud and reasonable grounds to suspect him guilty of blackmail and sending malicious communications in two publications. The defendant argued only 242 had viewed the first article and less the second therefore damages should be restricted. Following trial and no offer of amends, the claimant was awarded £37,500.

In Fentiman v Marsh [2019] EWHC 2099 (QB) a CEO of a company issued proceedings against a defendant who claimed he had illegally hacked its website and social media pages. There was evidence the allegations had spread, known as ‘grapevine dissemination’, additional publications taking place directly as a result of the publication by the defendant therefore increasing the extent of publication. Following trial an award of £55,000 was attained which included £10,000 aggravated damages.

In Burgon v Newsgroup Newspapers Limited [2019] EWHC 195 (QB) a claimant brought an action against a national newspaper for having published an online article alleging he had ‘joined a band which, as he knew, took great pleasure in using Nazi symbols’. Following trial an award of £30,000 was awarded, the libel being more serious because the claimant was an MP and therefore a well-known individual.

In Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC 3525 (QB) a claimant issued a claim against the Bristol branch of UKIP which had, via Twitter, published a photograph of him with a caption alleging he was under investigation for the sexual abuse of children in Rotherham. The claimant was not under investigation and it was accepted the allegation was false however the defendant refused to apologise and withdraw the allegation on the basis that the reader would be unable to sufficiently identify the claimant as he was not named. Following trial, the claimant was awarded the sum of £40,000. The libel was very serious, alleging there were grounds to investigate his involvement in criminal activity.

In Woodward v Grice [2017] EWHC 1292 a solicitor brought an action in libel in relation to a publication alleging he had been struck off the Solicitor Roll. The defendant in this action failed to accept he was wrong, stating that he had obtained the information from a third party website; that is, until the hearing of the claimant’s interim injunction hearing, when evidence was provided to him demonstrating he was wrong. The court awarded aggravated damages as a result of the defendant’s conduct, being his refusal to accept he was wrong until the interim injunction hearing, in the sum of £8,000 in addition to general damages in the sum of £10,000.

In Undre v Harrrow LBC [2017] EMLR 270 the local authority defendant alleged in a news release published online that the claimant, who was the operator of a vegan restaurant, had caused death to cows through neglect when actually the claimant was convicted of less serious animal welfare offences. This matter settled by offer of amends but late on in proceedings and it was noted it was done so begrudgingly. The court awarded the sum of £12,000 discounted to £9,000, refusing to allow 50% deduction in respect of the offer of amends.

In Sooben v Badal [2017] EWHC 2638 (QB) the defendant alleged the claimant and a solicitor had attempted to get individuals to commit perjury. The continued defence of truth up until conclusion of the claim including during cross examination at trial lead to an award of £70,000. Again, this was a serious allegation of criminality which was found to be false.

In Hourani v Thompson [2017] EWHC 432 the defendant carried out a campaign of harassment against the claimant through both online publications and distribution of stickers, accusing him of complicity in murder. There were two separate awards following trial, a payment in respect of the defamation in the sum of £50,000 and a further £30,000 for the harassment element.

In Oyster v Reed [2017] EWHC 1067 (QB) a claimant was accused of threatening a defendant with a gun in order to deter him from giving assistance to others in another libel action issued by the claimant. The allegation had been published online and the claimant was a well-known individual. Judgment was entered in default and the claimant was awarded the sum of £30,000 in damages. The case involved serious allegations of criminal misconduct, the claimant was a well-known individual, but the award was assessed earlier on in proceedings and not following a full contested trial.

In Barron and another v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB), the leader of UK Independence Party group made defamatory allegations in relation to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, suggesting that the extent of the sexual abuse of children in the area by grooming gangs was known to MPs who did nothing to stop it. In this action, two MPs sued the leader of UKIP in which the court was tasked with carefully considering the balance between freedom of speech particularly in politics, as against the damage to the claimants’ reputations when determining the level of award. The court awarded the sum of £40,000 each.

In Rai v Bholowasia [2015] EWHC 382 an award of £50,000 was achieved. The defendant published articles in a local newspaper (80,000 readership) accusing the claimant of theft, breach of trust, conspiracy to assault and threats to kill. There was a full trial and therefore no deduction awarded for offer of amends. Serious allegations of criminality were made against the claimant which were found to be false following trial.

In Appleyard v Wilby [2014] EWHC 2770 (QB) the claimant, a police officer, was accused in a tweet of having befriended and protected a celebrity who he knew to be a paedophile and rapist. In doing so was misusing his position as a police officer, and was himself accused of being a threat to children. The allegations of professional misconduct and criminal activity were serious and the award following judgment in default of a defence was £60,000.

In Garcia v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 3137 the publisher of The Daily Mail newspaper was sued by a General Practitioner who was Spanish following publication of an article which had labelled her a ‘foreign doctor’ and that she had caused her patient to suffer ‘a year of hell’ by reporting him to the DVLA highlighting concerns as to his fitness to drive without cause. The court awarded the sum of £45,000 in general damages for damage to reputation; hurt; distress and vindication.

In Flood v Times Newspapers Limited [2013] EWHC 4075 (QB) a claimant sued the defendant following publication of an article alleging there were grounds to believe the claimant was guilty of accepting bribes from Russian criminal suspects in return for selling confidential intelligence in relation to attempts to extradite them to Russia. The claimant was a police officer and therefore being accused of professional misconduct as well as criminal activity. Following trial, a sum of £60,000 was awarded, and of that sum £15,000 represented aggravated damages as a consequence of the defendant’s refusal to provide an update to the online article.

In Cairns v Modi [2013] 1 WLR 1015 the claimant, who was a well-known cricketer, was accused on Twitter of match fixing. The defence of justification failed and following trial an award of £90,000 was achieved of which £15,000 represented aggravated damages. The high level of damages would have taken into account the high-profile reputation in addition to the allegation of criminality.

In Al-Amoudi v Kifle [2011] EWHC 2037 (QB) the libel was published on an Ethiopian based website and was left there for months.  The claimant was accused of financing terrorism in allowing his daughter at the age of 13 to marry an elderly and disabled member of the Saudi Royal Family as a form of gift and hunting her down with a view to her execution by stoning or flogging.  He was awarded the sum of £175,000.

In Metropolitan International Schools Limited and Designtechnica Corporation [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB) the defendant alleged the claimant’s offer of distance learning courses was a scam. Evidence was provided that the allegations had deterred potential students from taking the courses and a sum of £50,000 was ordered following judgment in default of a defence.

In Wood v Chief constable of West Midlands Police [2005] EMLR 449 the claimant  brought an action against the police following phone calls and letters sent by them to members of the insurance industry alleging the claimant had a motor salvage business which was aided by the criminal activity of his business partner. An award following trial was attained in the sum of £45,000.

In Veliu v Mazrekaj [2007] 1WLR 495 the claimant was accused of being implicated in the London and Paris bombings in a Kosovan newspaper.  Its circulation amongst Albanian speakers in London was said to be in the thousands.  Eady J awarded £180,000 (current value £212,400).

In Ghannouchi v Al-Arabiya [2007]EWHC 2855 (QB) the claimant, a Tunisian exile was accused of having extremist links with Al-Qaeda.  The programme was broadcast to hundreds of thousands of people.  There was no apology, no offer of amends, as a consequence the award was aggravated, and he was awarded £165,000 (current value £188,100).

In Lillie and Reed v Newcastle City Council and Others [2002] EWHC 1600 (QB) two nursery workers were accused of sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children in care.  This was nationally reported in over 100 articles.  They had to flee their homes and jobs and go into hiding and change their names.  Some defendants pleaded justification and maintained the plea to trial.  They were awarded £200,000.

In Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [1994] QB 670 Esther Rantzen was accused in The People newspaper of keeping secret the fact that a teacher who helped her to expose sexual abuse at a boy’s school was himself an abuser.  Mirror Group Newspapers pleaded justification and fair comment.  The Jury awarded £250,000 which was reduced on appeal to £110,000 (current value £182,600).

In Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534) statements were made on a Russian programme broadcast in the UK. The claimant had been accused of offering the defendant massive payments to tell a false story to help him avoid extradition to Russia.  When the defendant refused, he was accused of drugging him.  The claimant was awarded £150,000 (current value £157,500) on appeal. The Judge thought it was on the high side but refused to interfere.

In Campbell-James v Guardian Newspapers [2005] EMLR 24 an allegation was made that the claimant, a distinguished army officer, had been involved in systematic abuse and humiliation of inmates at a prison in Iraq.  In fact, when the abuse took place the claimant was not even in Iraq.  The claimant had been exposed to a long-term security risk and would not be able to work in the Middle East again, and his career was damaged.  Eady J took a starting point of £90,000 (current value £108,900).

In Houston v Smith the claimant was a GP accused by the defendant of having sexually harassed her.  The accusation was made in front of only a few people in the waiting room of the GP’s practice.  The allegation however was so serious it could have ended the doctor’s career.  An award of £150,000 was made by the Jury which was reduced by the Court of Appeal to £50,000 (current value £83,000).  Hirst LJ thought that the award was at the very top end of the scale and if the defendant had promptly apologised it would have been a small fraction.

In Nail v News Group Newspapers Ltd the claimant was “from the News of the World”.  The paper had 4 million copies distributed.  The article suggested that he had progressed from eating dog meat to engaging in grubby sexual behaviour and being a heartless prima donna.  The starting point was £45,000 (current value £56,250).

In Angel v Stainton a letter was sent to five influential recipients that the claimant had been involved in illegal arms dealing and had received a prison sentence some years earlier.  An unqualified offer of amends was made two months later.  Eady J held the correct figure was £40,000 (current value £47,200) as it was a very small distribution.  However, the Judge thought that even so, the allegation had been so serious that if he was to award a modest level of compensation some people would consider that there was truth in the allegation.