header-logo header-logo

16 July 2021
Issue: 7941 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 16 July 2021

Defamation

XXXX (known as Jean Hatchet) v Varma [2021] EWHC 1709 (QB), [2021] All ER (D) 01 (Jul)

Where judgment in default had been entered in respect of the claimant feminist campaigner’s defamation claim, the Queen’s Bench Division held that an award of £45,000 in general compensatory damages was appropriate, which included an element of aggravated damages for the defendant’s failure to acknowledge the publication, withdraw the same or to make any apology. The court was satisfied that the defamatory meaning pleaded in the case represented a reasonable interpretation of the offending words, concerning allegations in relation to the claimant and a charity. Among other things, the court held that the ‘percolation phenomenon’, namely ‘where scandalous stories published on the internet might spread far beyond their immediate publishees’, was a legitimate factor to take into account in the assessment of general damages, and that the award had to be such as to deter the defendant, and others who had retweeted the tweets (or other tweets relying on the information in them), from publishing

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll