Glenn v Kline

In assessing damages for libel and harassment, the court should make a proportionate award which compensates injury to reputation and feelings and vindicates the claimant’s good name. Relevant factors include the gravity and extent of publication, the claimant’s position, the credibility of the publisher, likely percolation through social media, distress, and aggravating conduct. A single global award may properly address overlapping libel and harassment claims. An order under Defamation Act 2013, s 12, requiring publication of a judgment summary is discretionary and should be made where publication offers a realistic and proportionate prospect of vindication.

The claimant, a former Chief Executive Officer of The Football Association, brought claims in libel and harassment concerning a prolonged campaign of tweets and emails alleging corruption, criminality and complicity in child abuse. The defendant failed to acknowledge service or serve a defence. Nicklin J entered judgment in default and granted relief, including permanent undertakings. The present hearing concerned amendment of the damages limit, assessment of damages, publication of a judgment summary, and costs. The defendant was notified but did not attend or appear.

1. Procedural matters. The application to adjourn was refused. The defendant had notice of the hearing and had repeatedly failed to engage with the proceedings. The court nevertheless proceeded with safeguards reflecting CPR 39.3(3)–(5), including the possibility of an application to set aside. The court also considered the safeguards in s 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
2. Amendment. Permission was granted under CPR 17.1(2)(b) to increase the pleaded damages limit from £25,000 to £100,000, subject to payment of the additional court fee. The change reflected a genuine alteration in the claimant’s expectations and caused no demonstrated prejudice.
3. Harassment damages. Applying the guidance in Suttle v Walker and the Vento bands, the prolonged, targeted and vindictive online campaign, its seriousness, reach, effect on the claimant’s professional and family life, and the absence of supporting evidence justified £25,000 for the pre-May 2019 harassment claim.
4. Libel damages. The court applied the compensatory and vindicatory principles restated in John v MGN Ltd, including gravity, extent of publication, credibility, distress, refusal to retract, and conduct of the proceedings. The allegations were exceptionally serious, widely disseminated and aggravated by persistence, repetition and lack of apology. A single award for the overlapping libel and harassment claims was appropriate: £65,000 general damages and £10,000 aggravated damages, in addition to the £25,000 harassment award.
5. Publication of judgment summary. Under s 12 of the Defamation Act 2013, the court ordered publication of an agreed summary, with the court to settle the wording and arrangements if necessary. The defendant’s Twitter account offered a realistic means of reaching at least some readers of the defamatory publications, and the order was proportionate notwithstanding its impact on Article 10 rights.
6. Disposal. The damages limit was increased to £100,000. The claimant was awarded £100,000 in total, no further injunction was required because of the permanent undertakings, and the defendant was ordered to pay £17,500 for the hearing and £40,000 on account of costs.