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

The eighth publication

The like considerations apply as apply to the first to sixth publications. In particular, the Defendant’s pleaded case concerning his sources and concerning the “strenuous efforts” that he made to verify the allegation that the Claimant was behind the registration of this complaint against the Defendant are the same as in respect of the first publication.

The DWS states (among other things) that the tweet was published “in response to a perceived injustice involving the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) against me, allegedly orchestrated by [the Claimant]”, that the tweet “was not intended to defame the Claimant but rather to bring attention to potential misconduct and interference in legal proceedings” and “The term “fraudster from Lahore” was not directed specifically at the Claimant but rather at individuals who abuse their authority for personal gain”.

This evidence is difficult to reconcile with the plain language of the eighth publication. In particular, even if the expression “fraudster from Lahore” was not intended to be directed specifically at the Claimant, it is inescapable, and in my judgment must have been apparent to the Defendant at the time, that the tweet was accusing him of being one such fraudster.

I am unable to see any grounds upon which to uphold a s4 defence in this instance.