Our previous blog discussed how jurisdiction issues are decided in defamation cases. In this recent case, the Claimant lived in Dubai and was only in England and Wales for a small amount of time ,but was successful in claiming against his cousin, who lived in England, for defamatory statements made online.
Background
The Claimant is a former minister of Pakistan, who lived in Dubai and was a high-profile businessman in the United Kingdom. The Defendant is the Claimant’s cousin and lived in England. The Defendant published 249 tweets and 21 videos between early September 2019 and 20 March 2020 containing various allegations about the Claimant, including theft, fraud, corruption, threats and physical attacks. The Claimant brought claims in defamation and harassment against the Defendant.
Decision
The issues in dispute were:
- Whether one or more of the Defendant’s tweets or videos caused serious harm to the Claimant’s reputation;
- Whether the tweets and videos constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment;
- Whether the Defendant knew or ought to have known that was the case; and
- Whether the conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court:
Libel
- Accepted that the Claimant was ‘a man of good reputation’ before the publication and that all of the defamatory allegations were serious, such as the allegation that the Claimant derived his wealth from the illegal activities of his family;
- Stated the fact that the Defendant made it clear that he was a close relative of the Claimant would, in the eyes of readers, have lent him apparent credibility and given him ‘privileged access to inside knowledge about the family matters’;
- Took the likes, retweets and replies to the tweets, and the views of the videos into account as evidence of engagement with the publications;
- Inferred a degree of ‘grapevine percolation’ – the Defendant’s allegations would have been passed on electronically or by word of mouth to the Pakistani community in England and Wales due to the Claimant’s prominence among that community; and
- Stated that the likelihood of extensive circulation among the Pakistani diaspora was sufficient to cross the serious harm threshold;
Harassment
- Stated that as a public figure, the Claimant could be expected to be ‘more robust and tolerant’ than others;
- Stated that the Defendant’s campaign against the Claimant:
- Was not journalistic in nature, given that he repeatedly asserted the same bare allegations with no attempt to develop them; and
- Had ‘all the hallmarks of a course of conduct amounting to harassment’;
- Decided that a reasonable person in possession of the same information as the Defendant ought to have recognised that the course of conduct amounted to harassment;
- Took into account all of the tweets and videos and did not have to consider whether only the tweets published whilst the Claimant was in England and Wales amount to a course of conduct; and
- Stated that the Claimant needed only to have experienced harassment ‘to more than a minimal extent’ whilst in England and Wales.
The Court decided to make separate awards for libel and harassment. Although the Claimant was entitled to compensation for injury to his feelings in both cases, there was very limited overlap between the distress caused by libel and the distress caused by the harassment.
The Court therefore awarded £40,000 in damages for libel and £3,000 for harassment in favour of the Claimant against the Defendant.
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us