The recent High Court decision in this case is a significant addition to the growing body of law at the intersection of defamation, harassment and social media. The case, heard before Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC, offers valuable lessons for practitioners advising clients on online reputation, family disputes and the limits of free speech.
Background
The dispute was between two cousins: the Claimant, a high-profile businessman and former Pakistani government minister, and the Defendant, who conducted a sustained Twitter campaign against the Claimant between September 2019 and March 2020. The Defendant published 249 tweets, many containing serious allegations of corruption, theft and dishonesty, some with embedded videos. The Claimant alleged that 40 of these tweets (or their videos) were libellous and that the entire campaign amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PfHA).
Procedural complexity
The case was procedurally complex, with multiple amendments to pleadings, late applications and the Defendant acting in person for much of the proceedings. The Court was required to make reasonable adjustments for the Defendant’s disabilities and status as a litigant in person, a reminder of the Court’s duty to ensure fairness even in contentious, high-profile litigation.
Defamation: the “serious harm” threshold
A central issue was whether the tweets and videos caused “serious harm” to the Claimant’s reputation, as required by s.1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013. The Court applied the principles from this case and subsequent authorities, emphasising that the threshold is not easily crossed, especially where the audience is diffuse and the Claimant is a public figure.
Key findings:
- Only 5 tweets and 3 videos were found to have caused serious harm to the Claimant’s reputation in England and Wales.
- The Court took a cautious approach to the extent of publication, noting the lack of evidence as to the number and location of followers and viewers.
- The seriousness of the allegations, the apparent credibility of the Defendant (as a close relative) and the Claimant’s prominence in the UK Pakistani community were all relevant factors.
- The Court rejected the Defendant’s attempts to rely on truth, honest opinion or public interest defences, as these were inadequately pleaded and repeated applications for permission to rely on the said arguments had been refused.
Harassment: repetition, targeting and reasonableness
The harassment claim succeeded on the basis of the relentless, repetitive, and targeted nature of the Defendant’s campaign. The Court found:
- The Defendant’s conduct went well beyond mere annoyance or irritation, amounting to a course of conduct calculated to cause alarm and distress;
- Tagging the Claimant and media organisations, and the taunting tone of some tweets and videos were aggravating factors;
- The Defendant’s belief in the justice of his cause was irrelevant; the test is objective; and
- The Court was satisfied that the Claimant experienced the harassing effects in England and Wales, even though much of the campaign was international in scope.
Damages and remedies
- The Claimant was awarded £40,000 for libel and £3,000 for harassment, reflecting the limited overlap between the two heads of claim.
- The Court refused to grant an injunction, accepting the Defendant’s assurances that he had abandoned his campaign and deactivated his Twitter account in 2023.
- The judgment provides a useful discussion of the approach to damages, referencing the Vento bands for harassment and recent authorities on defamation awards.
Practical lessons
1. Pleading and particularisation: This case is a stark reminder of the importance of properly pleaded defences in defamation and harassment claims. Defendants must particularise truth, honest opinion, and public interest defences at an early stage or risk not being able to rely upon them.
2. Serious harm and evidence: Claimants must be prepared to provide evidence of serious harm, especially where the audience is online and international. Mere assertions of reputational damage are unlikely to suffice (although the Claimant was successful with an inferential case here).
3. Harassment and social media: Persistent, targeted and repetitive conduct on social media can amount to harassment, even where the Defendant believes they are acting in the public interest or seeking justice for perceived wrongs.
4. International dimension: The Court reaffirmed that harassment claims under the PfHA require the Claimant to experience the effects in England and Wales, but the conduct itself may be international.
5. Remedies: The refusal of an injunction in this case demonstrates the Court’s reluctance to grant such relief absent evidence of a real risk of future harm.
Comment
The above case is a cautionary tale for both Claimants and Defendants in online disputes. For Claimants, it underscores the need for clear evidence and careful pleading. For Defendants, it is a warning that social media campaigns, even if motivated by genuine grievance, can cross the line into actionable defamation and harassment.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us