Simon Bard Parkes v Toby Hall & Anor.

Following a default judgment in a claim involving overlapping defamatory publications, privacy infringements and harassment, the court may assess one compendious award covering overlapping heads of damage, provided that double recovery is avoided. Damages must reflect the seriousness and baselessness of the allegations, their extent of publication, their impact on reputation and feelings, continuing effects, and any aggravating conduct. The Vento bands provide appropriate guidance for harassment by publication. A claimant’s recovery from another jointly liable defendant must be taken into account where the common damage overlaps, but the defendant must adduce evidence in mitigation. Where an ongoing campaign of publication and harassment is established, injunctive relief and deletion orders may be just and proportionate.

The claimant brought proceedings for defamation, harassment, breach of data protection and misuse of private information arising from online videos and emails published between July and September 2020. The defendants’ defences were struck out and judgment was entered for the claimant by Sir Andrew Nicol under an order dated 22 October 2021, for which the reasons are reported at [2021] EWHC 2824 (QB).

The first defendant subsequently settled. The disposal hearing therefore concerned the second defendant, including damages, aggravated damages, further injunctions and costs. The second defendant had notice of the hearing but ceased engaging with the court. The central issues were the appropriate compensatory award, the effect of the first defendant’s settlement, whether the publications constituted serious harassment, and whether further injunctive relief was justified.

1. Proceeding in the defendant’s absence. The court was entitled to proceed in the second defendant’s absence. The claimant had taken all practicable steps to notify him of the relief sought, there was no evidence that proceeding would be unfair, and the protection available under CPR r 39.3 remained relevant. The approach in Pirtek (UK) Ltd v Jackson [2017] EWHC 2834 (QB) was followed.
2. Assessment following default judgment. Remedies were assessed on the basis of the claimant’s unchallenged pleaded case, applying the principles summarised in Suttle v Walker [2019] EWHC 396 (QB). The publications and witness evidence also provided a sufficient factual basis for the assessment.
3. Damages. In a case involving multiple overlapping defamatory publications, the court could adopt a global approach and make one compendious award. The award had to avoid double-counting between defamation, misuse of private information and harassment. Relevant considerations included the gravity and baselessness of the allegations, extent of publication, reputational and emotional impact, continuing publication, and aggravating conduct. The approach in John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586 (CA), Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB), Culla Park Ltd v Richards [2007] EWHC 1850 (QB), Ronaldo v Telegraph Media Group Limited [2010] EWHC 2710 (QB), and Richard v The British Broadcasting Corporation [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) was applied or taken into account.
4. Harassment damages. Damages for harassment compensate distress and injury to feelings. The Vento bands, originating in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2002] EWCA Civ 1871, [2003] ICR 318 (CA), were accepted as appropriate guidelines for harassment by publication. The persistent publication campaign justified an award in the upper band.
5. Outcome. The court awarded £35,000 in compendious damages, including aggravated damages and allowing for the first defendant’s settlement. It granted injunctions prohibiting further publication, publication of private information or personal data, and harassment, and ordered deletion of copies of the relevant videos.

The judgment was a first-instance disposal hearing following the striking out of the defendants’ defences and entry of judgment under the order dated 22 October 2021. The reasons for that order are reported at [2021] EWHC 2824 (QB). The first defendant settled before the disposal hearing; the second defendant did not appear.