Guise v Shah

In libel, serious harm concerns injury to reputation; injury to feelings alone is insufficient. Substantial truth is assessed by identifying the essential sting of the imputation, while partial justification may reduce damages. Honest opinion requires an identifiable factual basis and an honestly held opinion. Harassment requires conduct on at least two occasions which is targeted, objectively alarming or distressing, and oppressive and unacceptable; conduct may be reasonable in the particular circumstances, but retaliation does not automatically make it reasonable. Claims under the Data Protection Act 1998 may accompany libel claims, although a separate award may be inappropriate where the libel judgment adequately records the inaccuracies and no compensable distress is proved.

Dr Guise and Mr Shah had worked together in connection with Dental CPD Services Ltd. After their relationship ended in a dispute about remuneration and confidential information, each published a website making allegations about the other. Dr Guise claimed libel, harassment and infringement of the Data Protection Act 1998. Mr Shah counterclaimed for harassment and infringement of the Act; his malicious falsehood claim was discontinued.

The court determined the meaning of the publications, serious harm, truth and honest opinion defences, damages and injunctions, data accuracy and fairness, and whether either party’s conduct amounted to harassment.

1. Libel. The publications about Dr Guise caused serious harm to his reputation. The allegation that he had perpetrated a scam was a statement of fact and was not justified. Mr Shah proved the substantial truth of the allegations concerning unwarranted demands for payment and breach of trust and confidentiality. He did not prove the alleged conflict of interest or deliberate misrepresentation of association with the company. Some allegations on Dr Guise’s website were true and others were false.
2. The meanings that Dr Guise had behaved unethically and could not be trusted in financial matters were opinions. Mr Shah established their factual basis and that he honestly held them, although the defence did not fully meet the agreed meaning involving extreme caution. The allegation that Dr Guise could not be trusted with confidential information was also an opinion, supported by his conduct in contacting third parties with confidential material.
3. Partial justification reduced the damages, but did not defeat the claim because the unproved scam allegation seriously harmed Dr Guise’s reputation. Dr Guise was awarded £25,000. The publication and republication of the website, together with the associated conduct, justified an injunction.
4. Data protection. Both parties had processed inaccurate and unfair personal data. The judgment sufficiently recorded the inaccuracies, and no relevant distress warranting damages was proved. No damages were therefore awarded under the Data Protection Act 1998, although an injunction restrained further publication of both websites.
5. Harassment. Mr Shah’s continued publication of his website, together with arranging for an unnamed man to attend Dr Guise’s home, was oppressive and unacceptable conduct amounting to harassment. The publication alone would not have crossed the threshold. Dr Guise’s conduct did not amount to harassment. He was awarded £3,000 for harassment, and Mr Shah’s counterclaim was dismissed.