Mirza & Anor v Ali & Ors

At a remedies hearing following default judgment, the court may proceed in the defendants’ absence where satisfied that they had adequate notice and a fair opportunity to participate. In assessing defamation damages, the court compensates for reputational harm, injury to feelings and distress, while seeking to restore the claimant’s position and provide vindication. The gravity of allegations, extent and intended audience of publication, persistence, absence of apology or retraction, and the defendants’ failure to justify the allegations are relevant. Where publications are deliberate, malicious and unsupported, injunctive relief may be granted to restrain repetition. A summary of judgment may also be ordered under Defamation Act 2013, s.12.

The claimants brought defamation proceedings against three defendants concerning online publications alleging that they had operated or promoted a fraudulent investment scheme, misused mosque connections and engaged in tax or other wrongdoing. Default judgment had been entered after the defendants failed to participate. The fourth defendant had settled separately.

The disposal hearing concerned damages, injunctive relief, publication of a judgment summary and costs. The defendants did not attend, but the court was satisfied that they had notice of the hearing and relevant materials. The central issues were the appropriate remedies for the unchallenged defamatory publications and the extent of the defendants’ liability.

1. Fairness and jurisdiction. The court was satisfied that the first, second and third defendants knew of the disposal hearing and had been provided with the relevant materials. It was therefore fair to proceed in their absence. The principles identified in Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 2053 (QB) were applied.
2. Defamation and damages. The publications conveyed serious allegations of fraud, dishonesty, tax evasion and misuse of a mosque. The allegations went to the claimants’ integrity, reputation and honour. On the unchallenged evidence, they were false, published deliberately and maliciously, and caused serious harm to reputation and meaningful distress. Damages were assessed to compensate for reputational loss, restore the position as far as possible, provide vindication and compensate injury to feelings. The court considered the principles reviewed in Suttle v Walker [2019] EWHC 396 (QB) and comparable awards, including Reachlocal UK Ltd v Bennett [2014] EWHC 3405 (QB), Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corp [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB), Greenaway v Poole [2003] EWHC 1735 (QB), Cray v Hancock and Emlick v Gulf News.
3. Liability and relief. Each claimant was separately defamed. The first, second and third defendants were jointly and severally liable for publications made jointly by the second and third defendants. The court awarded £17,500 against the first defendant in respect of each claimant and £35,000 against the second and third defendants jointly and severally in respect of each claimant.
4. Injunction and publication. The absence of retraction or apology, together with the possibility of repetition, justified injunctions restraining republication of the defamatory words or similar words. Publication of a summary of the judgment was also ordered under s.12 of the Defamation Act 2013. Costs followed the event, subject to further summary assessment.

First instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.