Stephen Gooderson v Mohammad Ismail Ali Qureshi

In a defamation claim based on online reviews, publication by the defendant may be established where the defendant procured or participated in publication, even if he did not personally write or submit the words. Reference is assessed objectively by asking whether the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader would understand the words to refer to the claimant.

For section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, serious harm is assessed separately for each statement at the liability stage. The court may infer serious harm from the meaning and gravity of the words, the circumstances and likely readership of publication, the claimant’s profile, duration of publication and evidence of actual impact. The cumulative effect of separate publications remains relevant to damages.

The claimant, an estate agent, sued over 21 allegedly defamatory reviews and images published on five websites. He alleged that the defendant had posted them following a dispute concerning the sale of two properties and the retention of a £5,000 deposit.

The defendant denied responsibility and counterclaimed, but his defence and counterclaim were struck out after repeated breaches of court orders. The claimant nevertheless had to prove publication, reference, defamatory meaning and serious harm. The principal issues were whether the defendant was responsible for the posts, whether certain misspellings referred to the claimant, whether the posts were defamatory and whether section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 was satisfied.

1. The claim succeeded in relation to Posts 1–20. The defendant was responsible for their publication, they referred to the claimant, they were defamatory at common law and they caused serious harm to his reputation. Post 21 was not defamatory on the pleaded basis.
2. Publication does not require proof that the defendant personally wrote or submitted the words. A person who procures or participates in publication may be liable. The court inferred responsibility from the coordinated use of false names, repeated wording, distinctive expressions, timing, links to the underlying deposit dispute and the defendant’s inadequate disclosure.
3. Reference was determined objectively. A reasonable reader of reviews concerning a small estate agency would understand “Godardson” to refer to the claimant because it closely resembled his name and the surrounding context identified the business.
4. The natural and ordinary meanings of Posts 1–20 substantially adversely affected the attitude of others towards the claimant. The meanings included dishonesty, untrustworthiness, exploitation of customers, misuse of the insolvency process and poor professional service.
5. Applying section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, each post had to be considered individually at the liability stage. The court did not aggregate separate posts to create serious harm. Serious harm could nevertheless be inferred from the gravity and meaning of the words, the specialist and local readership, the claimant’s standing, the period of online availability, views and evidence that business opportunities were lost. Posts 16, 17 and 19 were borderline but met the threshold.
6. For damages, the court considered the cumulative effect of the 20 defamatory posts. It awarded £42,500 in compensatory damages, including the aggravating factors, and granted an injunction restraining publication or republication of the words complained of and similar defamatory words.