The Impact Of Cross-Jurisdiction Defamation/Harassment

The judgment in this case is a sobering reminder of the power—and the peril—of online speech, especially when weaponised in personal vendettas. As a solicitor practising in the defamation arena, the writer found this case both deeply disturbing and legally significant. It reaffirms crucial principles while highlighting enduring challenges, particularly in relation to jurisdiction, digital publication, and the interplay between defamation and harassment.

Background: A campaign of harassment disguised as disclosure

The facts are stark. The Claimant, a Dubai-based professional, was the target of a near decade-long harassment campaign by the Defendant, involving repeated and graphic allegations of rape and bribery, largely disseminated through Instagram and Twitter (now X), following a brief and fleeting sexual encounter between the Claimant and Defendant. Many of these posts were not only defamatory but vicious, carrying severe imputations that threatened to destroy his reputation and career.

The judgment arose following a default judgment against the Defendant, who failed to engage with proceedings at all from the outset. The High Court’s task was to determine appropriate remedies for both defamation and harassment.

The importance of default judgments in reputation management

The case reaffirms that default judgments are not mere formalities. Under CPR Part 12.12, Courts are entitled to assess damages based on the unchallenged particulars of claim, provided they are not “wildly extravagant” or “impossible”.

This procedural framework is vital in defamation law. Defendants who evade responsibility or fail to defend baseless public accusations cannot escape legal consequences and a failure to engage with the proceedings in terms of defending them does mean that the majority if not all of the accusations made by the Claimant in the pleaded case will be accepted at face value by the Court when assessing the value of any compensation to be paid and whether to grant an injunction or not. Yet, as this case illustrates, that does not guarantee vast damages unless the extent of harm can be precisely shown, particularly in this jurisdiction.

Quantum of damages: gravity vs reach

The Claimant sought £120,000 in global damages, citing comparators like this case and this case. However, the Court awarded a significantly lower figure—£25,000—acknowledging the exceptional gravity of the libel but factoring in limited reach and sparse evidence of reputational harm within England and Wales. Essentially, the Judge found that the majority of the damage to the Claimant’s reputation was likely to be felt outside of England and Wales on the basis that there was a distinct lack of evidence before the Court demonstrating either the extent of publication specifically within the jurisdiction or of the Claimant’s connection to the jurisdiction in terms of business/working life.

From a solicitor’s standpoint, this outcome reiterates a crucial strategic consideration: evidence of publication and jurisdictional reach is essential. Without showing significant harm within England and Wales or traction of defamatory posts within the jurisdiction, especially in an online context, even egregious defamations may result in modest/lower awards.

Jurisdiction and locus of reputation

The Claimants’ limited presence in the UK further diminished his damages claim. As in this case and this case, the Court focused on reputation harm within the jurisdiction. The judgment reflects a growing line of authority suggesting that English Courts will not award damages for overseas reputational harm.

For claimants living abroad, this is a key takeaway: unless the defamatory material has significant traction within England and Wales, bringing proceedings in England may lead to limited awards, no matter how malicious the libel.

Harassment as a compounding factor

Although the harassment claim technically lacked standalone harm within the jurisdiction, it played an integral role in framing the context of the defamation. The Court rightly viewed the defamatory campaign as an escalation of pre-existing harassment—bolstering the gravity and malice behind the posts.

In practice, we increasingly see harassment and defamation intertwined. The digital realm blurs lines between abuse and publication. As a result, we advise clients to consider dual causes of action where appropriate—not only to broaden the evidential scope, but also to secure injunctive relief, which this judgment granted on both fronts.

Injunctive relief: A vital tool for reputation protection

A particularly welcome aspect of the ruling is the firm grant of injunctive relief, despite the absence of the Defendant. The Court found the injunction to be necessary and proportionate under s.12 of the Human Rights Act. The Defendant’s relentless conduct—already the subject of criminal sanctions—meant that the risk of repetition was acute.

This affirms that in online defamation cases, especially those involving unrepentant Defendants, the Court will not hesitate to prohibit further posts and contact, even where freedom of expression is implicated. For victims, this is critical: the ability to stop the ongoing harm matters more than retrospective compensation.