Removal Order Against A Website In A Defamation Claim

Dudley v Phillips [2022] EWHC 930 (QB)

Case background

The Claimant was Brian Dudley, an investment and wealth management expert, who runs his own business, Premier Global Consulting, and the Defendant, Michael Phillips, was a former employee of the Claimant. The Defendant allegedly posted a number of defamatory reviews accusing the Claimant of dishonesty and fraud.

The Claimant pursued a claim seeking damages for libel and compensation for a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) and/or the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR). The Claimant also sought an injunction and an order under Section 13 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013). Within the claim form, the Claimant capped damages at £10,000.

The Defendant failed to file an acknowledgement of service and/or a defence and as a result default judgment was entered against the Defendant. When deciding upon the damages to be awarded, the Court commented that the Claimant’s pleadings were ‘plainly reasonably’ and that the statements made by the Defendant were ‘self-evidently grave’. The Claimant was also able to provide evidence of actual serious reputational harm, as a result of the defamatory review.

On this basis, the Court awarded a combined award (in relation to breach of the DPA 1998 and GDPR) in the sum of £10,000. The Court clarified that if the Claimant had not placed a cap on the amount of damages he could recover, the Court would have awarded damages in the sum of £30,000 – £40,000.

An interesting element of this case was the Claimant’s claim for an order under Section 13 of the DA 2013. Section 13 of the DA 2013 states as follows:

The issue in this particular case was that the Defendant claimed to have lost his password to the review website ‘pissedconsumer.com’ and the website operator declined to remove the Defendant’s review.

The Court decided that the Claimant had already spent a significant amount of time and costs on this matter and therefore an order under Section 13 of the DA 2013 would be ‘the most effective way of ensuring the defamatory publications of which [the claimant] complains are swiftly removed’.

Comment

Orders under Section 13 DA 2013 are a relatively recent tool available to the Courts in defamation cases with very few reported cases of such an order being made. This case, however, shows that the Court can and will exercise its power under Section 13 DA 2013 when they feel it necessary to do so.