Hussein & Ors v Hamilton Franks & Co Ltd & Anor

In a defamation claim, properly served defendants who acknowledge neither service nor the claim may be subject to default judgment under CPR Part 12. The claimant need not prove falsity at the outset. The publisher must establish truth, honest opinion or another applicable defence.

In deciding whether to grant an injunction, the court must balance reputation rights against freedom of expression under Article 10, focusing on the publication restrained and the territorial connection with the jurisdiction. An injunction may be proportionate where further publication in England and Wales would cause continuing harm and effective redress otherwise depends on restraining a publisher operating within the jurisdiction.

Damages may compensate for local reputational injury and distress and may provide vindication. Their level should reflect the gravity and reach of publication, while excluding damage suffered principally outside the jurisdiction.

Three members of the Hussein family brought a libel claim against an English company and its managing director concerning defamatory allegations published on the defendants’ website. The claimants were principally resident and professionally established in the United States but retained British nationality and substantial family or business connections in England. The defendants were properly served but filed neither an acknowledgment of service nor a defence.

The claimants withdrew an initial application for default judgment before a Master and renewed it before a High Court judge because injunctive and other non-monetary relief was sought. The court had to determine whether default judgment should be entered and, if so, whether injunctions and damages were appropriate.

1. Default judgment. The claimants had properly served both defendants. No acknowledgment of service or defence had been filed. They were therefore entitled to judgment in default under CPR Part 12.
2. Defamatory meaning and falsity. The published words plainly conveyed that the claimants had committed fraud and dishonesty, were unsafe to do business with, and warranted investigation by professional regulators. In defamation proceedings the claimant need not prove that the words are false. The burden lies on a defendant who relies on truth, honest opinion or another protection under English law. Since the defendants had failed to defend the claim, the normal presumption that the allegations were false applied.
3. Injunction. The court’s discretion had to focus on preventing further publication in England and Wales, rather than publication in the United States. The claimants had sufficient connections with this jurisdiction to establish local reputational harm. The defendants operated the website from within the jurisdiction, and an injunction was the only effective redress against further publication here. The collateral effect on publication elsewhere was relevant but carried little weight on the facts. The claimants’ reputation rights substantially outweighed the defendants’ Article 10 rights in relation to these unchallenged allegations. An injunction requiring removal of the words and prohibiting publication of words to the same or similar effect was therefore granted.
4. Damages. Defamation damages may compensate for injury to reputation, injury to feelings, and provide public vindication that the words were false. The court limited its assessment to harm within this jurisdiction. Although allegations of fraud were exceptionally serious, the claimants’ principal reputational interests were in the United States. Awards of £10,000 were made to each parent and £20,000 to their son, whose connections with England were more active. The claimants were also entitled to their costs.

The judgment describes an initial application for default judgment before a Master. That application was withdrawn because injunctive relief was sought, and the application was renewed before the High Court judge. No appellate decision is stated.