Metropolitan International Schools Ltd (t/a Skillstrain and/or Train2game) v Designtechnica Corporation (t/a Digital Trends) & Ors

In assessing damages for internet libel, the court considers the gravity of the allegation, the extent of publication and the likely harm to the claimant’s reputation and business. Damages may serve compensation, vindication and, where applicable, recognition of distress, although a corporation cannot suffer feelings. Vindication is especially important where the claimant seeks to demonstrate the falsity of serious allegations. The meaning of defamatory words is determined by the approach of the reasonable reader: the court reads the publication as a whole, avoids strained interpretations, disregards the publisher’s intention and prefers a defamatory meaning only where it is the natural and reasonable meaning.

The claimant brought libel proceedings concerning statements published on the First Defendant’s internet forums between 2006 and 2009. The statements alleged that the claimant’s distance-learning businesses and courses involved fraud, misrepresentation, unlawful practices and poor value. Claims against Google UK Limited and Google Inc concerning search results were no longer pursued after permission to serve the Third Defendant out of the jurisdiction was set aside in [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB).

Judgment in default was entered against Digital Trends, and the hearing concerned the assessment of damages. The central issues were the meaning and falsity of the publications, their extent and effect, and the sum required principally to vindicate the claimant’s reputation.

1. Meaning. Applying the principles summarised in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130, the court determined the natural and ordinary meaning by reference to the reasonable reader. The reader is not naïve or unduly suspicious, the publication must be read as a whole, the publisher’s intention is irrelevant, and strained or forced meanings must be excluded. The words complained of bore the defamatory meanings pleaded by the claimant.
2. Falsity. On the documentary and oral evidence, the claimant proved that the meanings complained of were false.
3. Damages. The assessment followed the principles discussed in Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027. Damages in libel may compensate injury to reputation, vindicate the claimant’s good name and take account of distress, hurt and humiliation. The latter purpose has no application to a corporation. Relevant factors included the gravity of the allegations, the number of readers and the extent to which publication might cause readers to treat the claimant less favourably.
4. The publications were accessible through a widely visited website and were inferred to have been read in the United Kingdom. Evidence showed continuing enquiries from potential students and actual commercial harm. The principal purpose of the award was vindication. The sum necessary to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations was £50,000.
5. Order. Judgment was entered for the claimant against Digital Trends in the sum of £50,000.

The judgment is a first-instance assessment of damages. The judgment records that permission to serve Google Inc out of the jurisdiction was set aside in [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB); the claims against Google UK Limited and Google Inc were not pursued. Default judgment had previously been entered against Digital Trends, leaving the assessment of damages for determination.