Simon Schofield v Politicalite Limited & Anor

In assessing damages for a single publication giving rise to several overlapping causes of action, the court may make one global award where separate awards would risk double recovery. The award must compensate injury to reputation, distress and hurt feelings, and provide adequate vindication, while remaining necessary and proportionate. The court may take account of gravity, extent of publication, internet percolation, the nature and presentation of private information, and aggravating conduct. Following default judgment, an injunction may be granted where republication is reasonably threatened and no defence justifies interference with reputation. An order requiring publication of a judgment summary is discretionary and requires a realistic prospect that it will protect reputation in a necessary and proportionate manner.

The claimant brought proceedings for libel, malicious falsehood and misuse of private information arising from an online article alleging that he was involved in grooming children. Judgment had previously been entered in default after the defendants failed to acknowledge service or defend the claim. The defendants were notified of the remedies hearing but did not attend or appear by representation.

The court determined the appropriate damages, whether to grant an injunction restraining republication, whether to order publication of a summary under the Defamation Act 2013, and the appropriate costs order.

1. Damages. Under CPR 12.12(1), damages were assessed on the basis of the claimant’s unchallenged particulars of claim. The defamatory meaning alleged involvement in child grooming and the manipulation, exploitation or abuse of children through the claimant’s professional position. That meaning was inherently very serious and fell towards the upper end of gravity.
2. The court considered the extent of primary publication, the likely readership, republication through social media, and the internet’s percolation or grapevine effect. The allegations remained capable of being accessed through republications, screenshots and internet archives even after removal from the original website.
3. The court applied the principles in Sloutsker v Romanova and related authorities. Damages had to compensate injury to reputation and feelings, vindicate the claimant, and remain necessary and proportionate. The defendants’ failure to investigate or apologise, abusive responses, threats to republish and actual republication aggravated the claimant’s injury to feelings.
4. Although the claim involved three causes of action, all arose from the same publication and the harm substantially overlapped. A single global award was therefore appropriate, avoiding double-counting. The court awarded £90,000 for injury to reputation and feelings and adequate vindication.
5. Injunction and summary. An injunction was necessary and proportionate because the defendants had republished the article after service of the claim and had threatened further publication. In the absence of a defence, there was no justification for interfering with the claimant’s right to reputation. A summary under section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 was also justified because publication on the website and the defendants’ X page had a realistic prospect of reaching readers of the original article. The defendants were ordered to pay costs summarily assessed at £35,000.

First-instance remedies decision following default judgment entered by Nicklin J on 29 November 2023. The defendants did not apply to set aside the default judgment and did not attend the remedies hearing.