The Assessment Of Damages In A Defamation Claim

Miller v Peake [2025] EWHC 453 (KB)

Background

Dr Miller was a clerk for the Fleggburgh Parish Council (FBC). Mr Peake was a member of the FBC and later became the chairman. This claim involves 12 posts published on Mr Peake’s Facebook profile accusing Dr Miller of being dishonest, incompetent, and threatening amongst other things.

Dr Miller pursued a claim in defamation and malicious falsehood in relation to the publications. For the purposes of this blog, I have focused on the defamation element of Dr Miller’s claim.

The Judge found that given the meanings he had found the words to bear, he had no difficulty in concluding that the posts would lower Dr Miller in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, and therefore he was satisfied that the publications were defamatory at common law.

The Judge went on to consider whether the publication had caused serious harm to Dr Miller. The Judge considered how far reaching the posts were, noting that Mr Peake had 271 Facebook followers in 2023 when the posts were taken down. The Judge found that the allegations were sufficiently serious against a person in a public position in the rural community that it would satisfy the serious harm test. The Judge clarified that in relation to the serious harm requirement, it is not just how far reaching the publications are, although, this can be relevant.

Mr Peake tried to rely upon several defences including truth, honest opinion, and public interest. He was unsuccessful in relation to all three. Accordingly, the Judge found that Dr Miller had satisfied all elements of a defamation claim and went on to consider what damages to award.

Damages

Dr Miller sought damages and aggravated damages as a result of the publication. The Judge confirmed that aggravated damages is not a separate head of loss and that the real question to be determined was whether Dr Miller was entitled to an award of damages reflecting any proved elements of aggravation, such as damage or upset increased by Mr Peake’s conduct.

Dr Miller submitted that he was entitled to aggravated damages based on the gravity of the allegations and the fact that he had to leave his position as the clerk of FBC. The Judge disagreed. He took the view that this was in relation to the publications themselves and was not as a result of any particular conduct on the part of Mr Peake. The Judge found that the only potentially aggravating factor was Mr Peake’s insistence in Court that the allegations were true and his refusal to take down the posts in February 2023 despite being ordered to do so. The Judge therefore included a small element within the award to reflect this aggravation.

Dr Miller sought damages of £20,000. The Judge found that this was a sensible and realistic figure reflecting the injury caused. He explained that he had only awarded a relatively modest sum, as a perceptive reader after reading a few of Mr Peake’s posts would have realised that he was obsessive and fixated on abusing Dr Miller and would have taken the posts less seriously as they were repeated.

Comment

This judgment provides a useful insight into the way in which the Court will assess damages in a defamation claim.