Oyston v Reed

In assessing damages for internet libel, the court must consider the scope of publication, the need for vindication, proportionality, aggravating conduct and any properly admissible mitigation. Rumours and evidence of particular acts tending to show bad character are not admissible to establish a claimant’s bad reputation. A late admission, apology or expression of shame may mitigate damages, but its effect depends on timing and context. An injunction is appropriate where there is a real risk that the defendant will repeat the libel or commit related harassment.

The claimant, chairman of Blackpool Football Club Ltd, sued a club supporter for online publications alleging that he had threatened the defendant with a shotgun, committed criminal offences and attempted to pervert the course of justice. Liability had been established by default judgment, which had not been set aside.

The hearing concerned damages and injunctive relief. The court assessed the truth or falsity of the allegations, the extent of publication, mitigation, aggravation and the continuing risk of repetition.

1. Liability and factual findings. Liability was established by the default judgment. The publications were substantially defamatory and had been viewed by a considerable audience, including football supporters and, following republication, national media audiences. CCTV evidence showed that the claimant had carried the gun with its barrel pointing downwards and had not brandished or raised it towards the defendant.
2. Mitigation and reputation. Evidence of bad reputation was considered in accordance with Associated Newspapers v Dingle 1964 AC 371. Evidence of rumours and evidence of particular acts tending to show character or disposition were inadmissible under Scott v Sampson (1882) 8 QBD 491 and Plato Films [1961] AC 1090. The claimant’s old conviction for possessing an offensive weapon had little effect on his present reputation. The defendant’s late acceptance that the allegations were untrue was relevant but of limited weight.
3. Damages. Applying the guidance in Cairns v Modi [2012] EWCA Civ 1383, the award had to be proportionate, reflect the extent of publication and provide vindication without requiring a detailed breakdown. Aggravating matters included the absence of an early retraction, continued repetition, abusive conduct towards the claimant and his lawyers, and a scurrilous email sent to the claimant’s wife. The least appropriate award was £30,000, together with the claimant’s costs.
4. Injunction. The defendant’s continuing submissions and accusations demonstrated a real risk of repetition. An injunction was therefore granted, backed by the possibility of imprisonment for contempt. It covered repetition of the libel and further harassment, including abusive communications and online postings, while extending beyond those examples.
5. The court did not determine whether the defendant’s conduct amounted to an offence or tort under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.