Woodward v Grice

Damages for libel serve both to vindicate reputation and to compensate for distress and loss. They are at large, and proof of actual damage or economic loss is unnecessary. The court must assess proportionality by reference to the seriousness, publication, need for vindication and resulting injury. Aggravated damages may reflect the defendant’s recklessness or hostility when publishing, persistence after complaint, irrelevant allegations made during the proceedings and an inadequate or delayed apology. Specific misconduct cannot be proved to mitigate damages, although attempts to introduce such material may aggravate the award. The defendant’s means are irrelevant. A serious libel may therefore justify substantial damages despite limited circulation and modest proved reputational injury.

The claimant, an in-house solicitor, sued for libel after the defendant published on Fansonline that he was a struck-off solicitor. Summary judgment had been entered on liability in respect of that publication. A materially identical posting appeared on another website, although the defendant denied making it.

The court assessed damages, including the alleged repetition, and considered aggravated damages, mitigation by apology, and permanent injunctive relief. The central issues were the extent of publication, reputational and emotional harm, the defendant’s conduct and state of mind, and the legal effect of his late apology.

1. Liability and repetition. The defendant admitted composing and publishing the Fansonline words, and their falsity was undisputed. The identical backhenrystreet posting was a reasonably foreseeable repetition, so the assessment reflected the total injury from both publications.
2. Compensatory damages. Damages in libel vindicate reputation and compensate distress and loss. No proof of actual damage is required and damages are at large. The libel was serious, but circulation was limited to at most hundreds of readers, there was no established significant professional injury within the claimant’s employment, and the apology provided some mitigation.
3. Aggravation. The defendant published recklessly, without evidence or confirmation of the allegation, and was motivated by hostile animus. He persisted in maintaining the allegation until the interim injunction hearing and pursued unsupported allegations of impropriety during the litigation. Those matters significantly aggravated the injury to the claimant’s feelings. They could not operate as mitigation.
4. Mitigation and proportionality. Specific instances of alleged misconduct could not be proved to mitigate damages. The late online apology carried limited weight because it was not made promptly or communicated personally. The court applied the proportionality guidance in Cairns v Modi [2012] EWCA Civ 138. The defendant’s poverty was irrelevant to the assessment.
5. Outcome. The court would have awarded £10,000 absent aggravating features, but assessed damages at £18,000. Permanent injunctive relief was granted because the risk of repetition was real and continuing. The parties were invited to make written submissions on the form of order and costs.

First-instance proceedings. Summary judgment on liability for the Fansonline publication had been entered on 31 December 2015. The present judgment determined damages and injunctive relief.