Easeman v Ford

On assessment of damages following a default judgment in libel, the court may grant the full range of summary remedies where the pleaded case and evidence justify them. Under Defamation Act 1996, section 9, those remedies include declaratory relief, correction or apology, damages subject to the statutory limit, and an injunction against further publication. Libel damages compensate distress and hurt feelings, injury to reputation, and provide visible vindication. Serious, malicious allegations, extensive republication and the defendant’s failure to apologise may justify the maximum award. Financial loss arising from aborted negotiations may be recovered as a measurable loss of a chance, even where precise quantification is difficult.

The claimant brought a libel claim against the defendant, a blogger and activist, concerning repeated online allegations that the claimant was a fascist, anti-Semite and Nazi sympathiser. The defendant did not acknowledge service or participate in the proceedings.

Default judgment was entered on 4 January 2016, with damages to be assessed. Further directions permitted the claimant to seek other relief under section 9 of the Defamation Act 1996. At the hearing, the issues were the appropriate declaratory, corrective, injunctive and monetary remedies, including the assessment of general, aggravated and special damages.

The court granted the claimant a declaration that the statements were false and defamatory, awarded the statutory maximum of £10,000 in general and aggravated damages, and ordered that the defendant be restrained from publishing or republishing the allegations. The claimant did not pursue an order for correction or apology because of the practical risk of unrecoverable further costs.

1. Jurisdiction and available remedies. Section 9 of the Defamation Act 1996 permitted the court, where appropriate, to grant all four forms of summary relief: declaration, correction or apology, damages up to £10,000, and an order restraining further publication. The wider relief was within the scope of the directions given for the assessment hearing.
2. Basis for assessment. The court proceeded on the claimant’s verified Particulars of Claim and witness statements. The circumstances did not justify looking beyond that unchallenged material. The approach was consistent with the observations in Robins v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 1912 (QB) and Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown etc. [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB).
3. Damages. Libel damages serve three purposes: compensation for distress and hurt feelings, compensation for reputational injury, and visible vindication. The allegations were exceptionally serious, unsupported and inferred to have been malicious. Their republication substantially widened the audience, and the defendant neither apologised nor responded to the claim. Those factors justified the maximum award of £10,000, irrespective of special damages.
4. The claimant had also suffered a substantial and measurable loss of a chance of profit when commercial negotiations were abandoned. The difficulty of proving the precise value of that loss did not prevent the court from recognising it, although the statutory maximum controlled the total damages award.
5. The claimant’s costs of £2,160, inclusive of VAT, were recoverable under CPR 46.5(3)(b) and were summarily assessed in that sum.

Default judgment for the claimant was entered on 4 January 2016, with damages to be assessed. Directions were subsequently given for the assessment hearing and for the claimant to identify any additional relief. The High Court then determined the assessment and granted declaratory and injunctive relief, awarded £10,000 damages, and assessed costs at £2,160.