Jon Richard Ltd v Gornall

Summary relief in defamation may be granted where the evidence shows that the defendant has no real or realistic prospect of defending the claim and there is no other reason for a trial. For a corporate claimant, damages compensate injury to business reputation and support vindication; damages for distress and humiliation have no application. Even limited publication may justify substantial damages where the allegations are grave, deliberately targeted and aggravated by repetition or deception, subject to the statutory cap. An injunction may be granted where a residual risk of repetition remains. Indemnity costs may be ordered where a party deliberately tampers with evidence and frustrates an expert examination central to resolving the dispute.

The claimant, a company operating a jewellery and accessories business largely through Debenhams, brought defamation proceedings against its former human resources manager. Two anonymous letters sent to Debenhams alleged that the claimant had committed and concealed a substantial fraud involving inflated invoices. The defendant denied publication but later ceased defending the claim. Expert examination of computers associated the defendant with the letters and identified attempts to delete relevant material despite a court order.

The claimant applied under section 8 of the Defamation Act 1996 for summary judgment, declarations, damages and an injunction. The issues were whether the defendant had a realistic defence, what relief was appropriate, and whether the circumstances justified indemnity costs.

1. Summary judgment. The defendant’s denial of publication had no real or realistic prospect of success. Although computer evidence and motive were not individually conclusive, the doctored document attached to the first letter, the similarity between the letters and characteristic typing errors provided conclusive evidence that the defendant had published them. There was no other reason for a trial.
2. Defamation and relief. The letters bore the pleaded defamatory meanings, were published to Debenhams, and were false. The claimant was entitled to declarations and an injunction prohibiting repetition of the allegations or similar defamatory allegations. The residual risk of repetition justified the injunction despite the apparently remote likelihood of further publication. An order requiring an apology or circulation of the judgment was unnecessary.
3. Damages. For a corporate claimant, damages concerned damage to business reputation. The purposes relating to distress and humiliation did not apply. Vindication remained important even where publication was limited, and the award had to be sufficient to support that purpose. The gravity of the allegations, the claimant’s vulnerability, the senior and commercially important recipients, the repetition of the allegations, and the presentation of the letters as whistleblowing were significant aggravating features. The appropriate damages were assessed at £75,000 but capped at £10,000 under section 9(1) (c) of the Defamation Act 1996.
4. Costs. The claimant was entitled to its costs. Indemnity costs were justified because the defendant had attempted to tamper with computer data and thereby frustrate an expert examination directed at resolving the central issue in the litigation.