ZAM v CFW & Anor

A successful claimant in defamation is normally entitled to a permanent injunction. False allegations attract no public interest in republication. The court may grant permanent anonymity where identification would assist a blackmailer, aggravate the harm or deter victims from seeking justice.

Defamation damages compensate injury to reputation and feelings and provide vindication. Their assessment takes account of the allegation’s gravity, extent of publication and the parties’ conduct. Subsequent unpleaded publications cannot increase damages for injury to reputation, although they may prove malice and resulting distress. Where harassment consists of defamatory publications, the court should avoid double recovery and may make a single award.

The claimant, a senior finance professional and school governor, obtained judgment against his brother-in-law for slander, libel and harassment. The defendant had pursued an extortionate campaign involving entirely false allegations of serious financial dishonesty and paedophilia. He published allegations to the claimant’s employer, relatives and school and later disseminated them online in breach of interim injunctions.

Following summary judgment on liability and the grant of permanent injunctions, the court assessed damages against the unrepresented defendant. It also determined whether the claimant should remain anonymous, whether unpleaded internet publications could aggravate defamation damages, and how compensation for defamation and harassment should be structured.

1. Permanent anonymity was granted. The defendant was attempting to blackmail the claimant and had repeatedly defied the interim injunctions. A public judgment identifying the claimant would enable further revenge or extortion. The court must adapt its procedures so that it neither assists blackmailers nor deters victims from seeking justice. Anonymity is unusual in defamation proceedings, but no principle prevents it where justice requires it. The order remained capable of variation if circumstances changed.

2. Freedom of expression did not prevent permanent injunctive relief after final judgment. The restrictive rule governing interim restraint applies while a lawful defence remains arguable. Once the defamatory allegations had been proved false, no public interest supported their republication. The claimant was ordinarily entitled to an injunction vindicating the right established by judgment.

3. Defamation damages compensate injury to reputation and feelings and provide public vindication. Relevant considerations include the allegation’s gravity, its impact on personal and professional integrity, the extent of publication, the absence of apology, malice and the defendant’s conduct before and during proceedings. Internet publication requires proof of readership; it carries no automatic presumption of substantial publication.

4. The defendant’s later internet publications were not pleaded as separate causes of action. Following Collins Stewart v Financial Times Ltd [2005] EWHC 262 (QB), they could not increase damages for injury to reputation. They could nevertheless demonstrate malice and be considered when assessing the claimant’s own distress and harassment. Distress observed in family members was relevant only insofar as it caused distress to the claimant.

5. The eight pleaded publications contained exceptionally grave allegations but reached few direct recipients and were not believed. The least sum required to compensate reputational injury and vindicate the claimant was £100,000. The defendant’s extortion, continued publications, defiance of injunctions and harassment justified a further £20,000 for distress.

6. Because the harassment consisted of making the defamatory publications, a separate harassment award would have duplicated compensation. Judgment was therefore entered against the second defendant for a single award of £120,000.

• High Court, 26 March 2013: Assessed damages against the second defendant at £120,000 and continued the claimant’s anonymity permanently.

• High Court, 30 July 2012: Entered summary judgment on liability against the second defendant, granted permanent injunctions and ordered damages to be assessed.

• High Court, 7 March 2011: The reasons for continuing interim injunctions restraining publication and harassment were given in ZAM v CFW [2011] EWHC 476 (QB).