Idowu Ogunkami v Cynthia Chia

Jurisdiction to hear a defamation claim concerning foreign publication is distinct from entitlement to recover damages for foreign harm. A claim for foreign publication must plead publication in each jurisdiction as a separate cause of action and allege actionability under the law of the place of publication. A claimant may invoke the presumption of similarity, but cannot simply omit any case on foreign law. Default judgment establishes liability on the unchallenged pleadings, but does not dispense with proof of causation, the type of damage or its level. Global internet publication does not alter these requirements.

The claimant sued Cynthia Chia in defamation and harassment arising from social-media publications and related conduct. Judgment in default was entered against Ms Chia. Following a remedies hearing at which she did not appear, the High Court awarded the claimant £25,000 for libel and harassment and granted injunctive relief: [2025] EWHC 1404 (KB).

The claimant appealed, arguing that damages should compensate him for reputational harm caused by publication worldwide. During the appeal he also sought permission to amend his pleading retrospectively to allege foreign publication and foreign-law actionability. The central issues were the pleading and proof required for foreign publication, the effect of default judgment on damages, and whether the late amendment should be permitted.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and refused the application for permission to amend.

1. Jurisdiction and entitlement. The court had jurisdiction over the claim because Ms Chia was served within England and Wales and did not challenge jurisdiction. The common-law jurisdiction over a properly served defendant is in principle unlimited. That question was distinct from whether the claimant had established a right to recover damages for foreign reputational harm. The court’s analysis was consistent with Barton v Wright Hassall [2018] 1 WLR 1119 and Soriano v Forensic News LLC [2021] EWCA Civ 1952.
2. Foreign publication. The Brussels regime decisions relied on by the claimant could not assist a post-transition claim. The applicable rule was double actionability. Defamation remained subject to that rule after the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995. Foreign publication should be pleaded for each jurisdiction as a separate cause of action, with an averment that it was actionable under the law of the place of publication. The presumption of similarity could assist where that case was pleaded, but it was not automatic. The claimant had pleaded neither foreign publication nor foreign-law actionability and therefore had no right to seek additional damages for publication abroad.
3. Default judgment and proof of loss. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, default judgment for unspecified money gives the claimant only the judgment to which he is entitled on his statement of case. The pleaded case operates as a proxy for liability, but damages, causation and the type and level of loss still require proof. The applicable practice direction required detailed pleading of publication, its extent, and serious harm under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. Those requirements were not met.
4. Assessment. Damages for libel are not calculated mathematically. Gravity, extent of publication, the claimant’s reputation in the relevant jurisdiction and evidence of actual injury were relevant. The judge’s findings of limited publication and very little specific evidence of reputational harm justified the award of £25,000. The overlapping harassment and libel claims could be reflected in one award, and no separate award for harassment was justified on the evidence.
5. Amendment. The late application sought to add statute-barred claims after judgment, without proper service, explanation or a clear pleading. The court considered that there were arguable jurisdictional obstacles under section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998, section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4(2). In any event, the application was inconsistent with the overriding objective and the proposed amendment was unclear and ineffective.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal and refused permission to amend.
2. High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division assessed remedies after default judgment, awarding £25,000 for libel and harassment and granting injunctive relief: [2025] EWHC 1404 (KB) .
3. High Court, Master Stevens entered judgment in default against Cynthia Chia for compensatory damages to be assessed and referred the remaining remedies for determination.