KB-2023-000257 - [2024] EWHC 647 (KB)

In my judgment, while some of Mr Vassall-Adams’ points have force, it cannot be said that Mr Sinton has no real prospect of showing that the letter of 13 April 2022 or republications of it caused serious harm to his reputation. There is evidence that barring a senior individual such as Mr Sinton from multiple sites was highly unusual and that those who heard of it considered that it gave rise to a question mark over his reputation, at least. Whether the harm to his reputation was serious enough to surmount the statutory test is an issue better left for determination at trial. There is a live question as to whether Slipper damage can be taken into account when assessing whether a publication has caused serious harm to reputation, but on the law as it currently stands it is arguable that it can: see Warby LJ’s judgment in the Court of Appeal in Amersi, at [63]. If so, Mr Sinton may be able to rely on the damage caused by the percolation of the statements communicated by letter, even if that percolation took place through the medium of republication by persons other than the defendant.

It follows that I would not grant summary judgment on the issue of serious harm alone.