Triad Group PLC & Ors v Makar

Libel damages serve three purposes: compensation for distress and hurt feelings, compensation for proved or inferable injury to reputation, and vindication. Harassment damages compensate distress and injury to feelings. Where the same conduct constitutes both torts, a single combined award may be appropriate, avoiding double recovery. In a default judgment damages assessment, the court ordinarily proceeds on the claimant’s unchallenged pleaded case, unless the claim is impossible or a required legal threshold is unmet. Serious, persistent and repeated online publications may justify a substantial award, with post-judgment repetition capable of aggravating distress. Money held in court may be paid to a judgment creditor where the requirements of CPR 72.10 are satisfied.

The claimants obtained judgment in default against the defendant on claims concerning breach of a settlement undertaking, harassment and defamatory publications. Julian Knowles J granted injunctions and directed assessment of damages for the second and third claimants.

Mr Justice Saini determined two applications: assessment of damages for libel and harassment, and an application under CPR 72.10 for payment out of surplus bankruptcy funds held in court. The defendant did not appear and was not represented. The central issues were the proper approach to assessing damages on an unchallenged pleaded case, the appropriate treatment of overlapping libel and harassment claims, and whether the procedural requirements for payment out had been met.

1. Damages for libel. The court adopted the established threefold purpose of libel damages: compensation for distress and hurt feelings, compensation for actual injury to reputation proved or reasonably inferred, and an outward and visible sign of vindication. The seriousness, reach and persistence of the publications, together with their effect on the claimants, were material.
2. Damages for harassment. Damages under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 compensate distress and injury to feelings. The court considered the Vento bands, while recognising that the assessment remained fact-sensitive.
3. Default judgment. Following Suttle v Walker [2019] EWHC 396 (QB), the ordinary approach was to assess remedies on the basis of the unchallenged pleaded case. Express factual findings and further evidence were generally unnecessary, subject to the claim being impossible or failing a required legal threshold.
4. Combined award. Because the libel conduct substantially overlapped with the harassment conduct, a single award for each claimant was appropriate. Continued repetition after judgment and in defiance of the injunction could aggravate the distress caused by the conduct forming the subject matter of the action. The second claimant received £65,000 and the third claimant £60,000.
5. Payment out. The requirements of CPR 72.10 had been satisfied because the application was served on the judgment debtor and the Accountant General at the Court Funds Office. The court ordered payment of all funds held in court to the claimants’ solicitors on account of the judgment debt, which included interest under Judgments Act 1838, s 17 and CPR 40.8, and the costs of the applications.