JOHN WARE v PADDY FRENCH

In a defamation claim, serious harm under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 may be proved by inferences drawn from the gravity and meaning of the allegations, the claimant’s circumstances, the scale and manner of publication, the identity and quality of publishees, and the inherent probabilities. It is not a numbers game, and evidence from individual publishees is not essential.

Where a defendant deliberately withdraws from the proceedings, the court may proceed in the defendant’s absence and strike out the defence under CPR r 39. The court may award a single compensatory sum reflecting aggravating conduct, order publication of a judgment summary where this is necessary and proportionate for vindication, and grant an injunction where there is a demonstrated risk of republication.

The claimant, a freelance journalist, sued the defendant, a retired television producer, over publications criticising a BBC Panorama programme about antisemitism in the Labour Party. At an earlier meaning hearing, Saini J held that the publications conveyed that the claimant was a rogue journalist who had deliberately presented a biased and knowingly false programme to harm Labour’s electoral prospects. That decision is reported at [2021] EWHC 384 (QB).

The defendant initially pleaded truth, public interest and absence of serious harm. He later withdrew the truth defence and then confirmed that he would take no further part in the proceedings. The issues before Knowles J were whether the trial should proceed in his absence, whether serious harm had been established, and what remedies should follow.

1. Trial in the defendant’s absence. The defendant had repeatedly confirmed that he would not attend or contest the claim. Applying CPR r 39 and the approach in Sahota v Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Ltd [2021] EWHC 3363 (QB), the court proceeded with the trial and struck out the Amended Defence. The circumstances were stronger than in Sahota because the defendant had positively elected not to participate.
2. Serious harm. The claimant had already established that the publications were defamatory. Applying Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612, serious harm could be inferred from the meaning and gravity of the allegations, the claimant’s professional reliance on his reputation, the extensive and targeted publication, the likely grapevine effect, and evidence that some readers believed the allegations. Specific evidence from publishees was unnecessary. The claimant’s case on serious harm was overwhelming.
3. Aggravation and damages. The defendant’s maintenance and later withdrawal of the truth defence, his untrue suggestion that the earlier meaning ruling had prevented a truth defence, and his continued public assertion that the allegations were true aggravated the injury. Following the approach in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB), the court awarded one global sum rather than a separately identified award of aggravated damages. Total damages were assessed at £90,000, subject to the claimant considering amendment of the pleaded limit.
4. Vindication and restraint. Applying Monir v Woods [2018] EWHC 3525 (Admin), an order under section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 was necessary and proportionate because a summary could realistically reach the original publishees. A permanent injunction was also appropriate because the defendant’s statements showed a real risk of republication. Judgment was entered for the claimant, with costs payable by the defendant.

The judgment was a first-instance decision following an earlier meaning hearing before Saini J, reported at [2021] EWHC 384 (QB). The present court proceeded to determine serious harm and remedies after the defendant withdrew from the proceedings.