UNITE THE UNION v MR RICARDO FREITAS

In assessing general damages for defamation, the court must make a broad and holistic assessment. It should consider the gravity of the allegations, the extent of publication and republication, and the evidence of reputational harm. Each case turns on its totality of facts. Damages may serve both compensation and vindication, including an outward and visible restoration of the claimant’s good name.

A permanent injunction is discretionary. After final judgment, freedom of expression does not ordinarily prevent injunctive relief. The decisive question is whether there is a real prospect that the defendant will publish again unless restrained.

Unite the Union brought libel and harassment proceedings concerning defamatory Facebook publications by a former British Airways cabin-crew member and union member. Summary judgment had previously been entered for Unite when the defendant failed to establish any arguable defence. The remedies hearing concerned general damages and final injunctive relief.

The defendant did not attend or make submissions. The court considered whether it was proper to proceed in his absence, the appropriate approach to compensation and vindication, and whether there was a sufficient prospect of repetition to justify an injunction.

1. The court was satisfied that all practicable steps had been taken to notify the defendant. It was therefore proper to proceed in his absence under Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(2)(a).
2. Defamation damages compensate injury to reputation and vindicate the claimant’s good name. Assessment is broad and holistic, taking account of gravity, extent of publication and republication, and evidence of harm. Comparable awards may assist, but each case depends on its own facts.
3. The allegations were exceptionally grave and widely circulated. The claimant’s reputation was important to its membership and collective-bargaining functions. The court awarded £50,000 in general damages.
4. Freedom of expression under Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(4), did not preclude a permanent injunction after final judgment. The remedy remained discretionary and depended principally on whether there was a real prospect of continued publication unless restrained.
5. The systematic publications, absence of undertakings or voluntary amends, and failure to engage with the proceedings justified restraint. A prohibitory injunction was granted.

Summary judgment had previously been entered for Unite by Master Yoxall on 8 October 2021. At the remedies hearing, the court awarded £50,000 in general damages and granted a prohibitory injunction.