QB-2022-002648 - [2025] EWHC 2565 (KB)

The Claim Form limits the claim for damages to £50,000. Mr Lemer submits that the Claimant is entitled to damages of at least that amount. He relied, in particular, on the following factors: (i) the seriousness of the allegations; (ii) the scale of publication; (iii) the percolation, borne out by the number of retweets, quotes, likes and views; (iv) the impact on the Claimant, which, according to his evidence, was severe; and (v) aggravating factors, including (a) the failure to approach the Claimant or afford him an opportunity to comment before and at the time of publication, (b) the assertion of a defence of truth, which was persisted in until the second day of the trial, (c) a failure to apologise, or to remove or retract the publications (as admitted in the Defendant’s pleaded case), and (d) the Defendant’s pleaded case that he “will continue to publish, or cause to be published, the same or similar allegations” and that “an injunction will have very little effect on this because … it will only operate to prevent publication to the Pakistani diaspora in England and Wales”. I would add that in the present case the tenor of the evidence of the Defendant’s witnesses was that he was regarded as credible. Also, he claimed to be well placed to know the facts.

Mr Harding did not address the measure of damages in his opening Skeleton Argument, or substantively, if at all, in his oral closing submissions.

The relevant principles as to quantification of damages in a defamation case were set out by Warby J (as he then was) in Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB):

“20.

The general principles were reviewed and re-stated by the Court of Appeal in John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586. A jury had awarded Elton John compensatory damages of £75,000 and exemplary damages of £275,000 for libel in an article that suggested he had bulimia. The awards were held to be excessive and reduced to £25,000 and £50,000 respectively. Sir Thomas Bingham MR summarised the key principles at pages 607-608 in the following words:

'The successful plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to recover, as general compensatory damages, such sum as will compensate him for the wrong he has suffered. That sum must [1] compensate him for the damage to his reputation; [2] vindicate his good name; and [3] take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has caused. In assessing the appropriate damages for injury to reputation the most important factor is [a] the gravity of the libel; the more closely it touches the plaintiff's personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of his personality, the more serious it is likely to be. [b] The extent of publication is also very relevant: a libel published to millions has a greater potential to cause damage than a libel published to a handful of people. [c] A successful plaintiff may properly look to an award of damages to vindicate his reputation: but the significance of this is much greater in a case where the defendant asserts the truth of the libel and refuses any retraction or apology than in a case where the defendant acknowledges the falsity of what was published and publicly expresses regret that the libellous publication took place. It is well established that [d] compensatory damages may and should compensate for additional injury caused to the plaintiff's feelings by the defendant's conduct of the action, as when he persists in an unfounded assertion that the publication was true, or refuses to apologise, or cross-examines the plaintiff in a wounding or insulting way. Although the plaintiff has been referred to as "he" all this of course applies to women just as much as men.'

21.

I have added the numbering in this passage, which identifies the three distinct functions performed by an award of damages for libel. I have added the lettering also to identify, for ease of reference, the factors listed by Sir Thomas Bingham. Some additional points may be made which are relevant in this case:

(1)

The initial measure of damages is the amount that would restore the claimant to the position he would have enjoyed had he not been defamed: Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (2004) 41 EHRR [37], [45].

(2)

The existence and scale of any harm to reputation may be established by evidence or inferred. Often, the process is one of inference, but evidence that tends to show that as a matter of fact a person was shunned, avoided, or taunted will be relevant. So may evidence that a person was treated as well or better by others after the libel than before it.

(3)

The impact of a libel on a person's reputation can be affected by:

a)

Their role in society. The libel of Esther Rantzen was more damaging because she was a prominent child protection campaigner.

b)

The extent to which the publisher(s) of the defamatory imputation are authoritative and credible. The person making the allegations may be someone apparently well-placed to know the facts, or they may appear to be an unreliable source.

c)

The identities of the publishees. Publication of a libel to family, friends or work colleagues may be more harmful and hurtful than if it is circulated amongst strangers. On the other hand, those close to a claimant may have knowledge or viewpoints that make them less likely to believe what is alleged.

d)

The propensity of defamatory statements to percolate through underground channels and contaminate hidden springs, a problem made worse by the internet and social networking sites, particularly for claimants in the public eye: C v MGN Ltd (reported with Cairns v Modi at [2013] 1 WLR 1051) [27].

(4)

It is often said that damages may be aggravated if the defendant acts maliciously. The harm for which compensation would be due in that event is injury to feelings.

(5)

A person who has been libelled is compensated only for injury to the reputation they actually had at the time of publication. If it is shown that the person already had a bad reputation in the relevant sector of their life, that will reduce the harm, and therefore moderate any damages. But it is not permissible to seek, in mitigation of damages, to prove specific acts of misconduct by the claimant, or rumours or reports to the effect that he has done the things alleged in the libel complained of: Scott v Sampson (1882) QBD 491, on which I will expand a little. Attempts to achieve this may aggravate damages, in line with factor (d) in Sir Thomas Bingham's list.

(6)

Factors other than bad reputation that may moderate or mitigate damages, on some of which I will also elaborate below, include the following:

a)

"Directly relevant background context" within the meaning of Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 579 and subsequent authorities. This may qualify the rules at (5) above.

b)

Publications by others to the same effect as the libel complained of if (but only if) the claimants have sued over these in another defamation claim, or if it is necessary to consider them in order to isolate the damage caused by the publication complained of.

c)

An offer of amends pursuant to the Defamation Act 1996.

d)

A reasoned judgment, though the impact of this will vary according to the facts and nature of the case.

(7)

In arriving at a figure it is proper to have regard to (a) Jury awards approved by the Court of Appeal: Rantzen 694, John, 612; (b) the scale of damages awarded in personal injury actions: John, 615; (c) previous awards by a judge sitting without a jury: see John 608.

(8)

Any award needs to be no more than is justified by the legitimate aim of protecting reputation, necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of that aim, and proportionate to that need: Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd [1994] QB 670. This limit is nowadays statutory, via the Human Rights Act 1998.”

As Warby J said in Doyle v Smith [2019] EMLR 19 at [131]: “The authorities suggest that the Court should have regard to other awards made by Judges and/or approved by the Court of Appeal, in respect of comparable libels”. At the same time, as Eady J said in Al Amoudi v Kifle [2013] EWHC 293 (QB) at [24]: “comparable awards … are … of limited assistance only because circumstances vary so much from one case to another”. As Nicklin J said in Monir v Wood  [2018] EWHC 3525 at [228]: “Damages for libel cannot be calculated on any mathematical basis. By definition, they seek to provide compensation for harm that it is almost impossible to quantify in monetary terms. The Court attempts to achieve consistency in awards by applying the principles I have identified above, but in reality, no case presents exactly the same circumstances and only some level of commonality or general principle can be extracted”.

For these purposes, Mr Lemer drew my attention to awards which have been made in other cases. The cases which I consider to be of most assistance are the following, one of which I have added myself:

In the present case, I agree that all the factors identified by Mr Lemer are relevant. I also consider that it would be appropriate to make one award in respect of all the defamatory publications complained of. In my judgment, applying the principles I have identified and taking account of all the factors mentioned, an appropriate award, including aggravated damages, would be in excess of £50,000. Anything less would fail to serve the relevant purposes, as rehearsed in Barron. However, the Claim Form limits the claim to £50,000.