Sasha Rodoy v Optical Express Limited

In a defamation claim arising from statements made in complaint correspondence, serious harm is assessed separately for each publication and each publishee. The court must consider the words’ inherent tendency together with their actual impact; publication to a small number of people can suffice where the allegation affects the claimant’s credibility and is believed by the recipient.

For substantial truth, the defendant must prove the sting of each defamatory imputation, but immaterial inaccuracies need not be established. A qualified privilege may arise from an existing clinical or commercial relationship where the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving information relevant to that relationship. The privilege is lost only if a dominant improper motive, such as personal spite, is proved.

This was a first-instance defamation trial concerning four letters sent by Optical Express Limited to former patients who had mentioned Sasha Rodoy or her website. The letters described her as a fraudster, alleged that she trolled Optical Express and its staff online, and stated that her conduct had created reasonable grounds to suspect a risk to staff safety.

The natural and ordinary meanings had previously been determined by His Honour Judge Lewis in an order dated 27 February 2024. The issues at trial were serious harm, substantial truth, qualified privilege, malice and relief. The claimant relied on evidence from three recipients; the fourth recipient did not give evidence.

1. Serious harm. Each letter was assessed separately. Serious harm was established in every case because the recipients had regarded Ms Rodoy’s website or advice as credible, the allegations came from a substantial business, and the statements caused them to distrust or cease contact with her. The court rejected any aggregation of harm between separate publications.
2. Truth. The allegation that Ms Rodoy was a fraudster was substantially true. The evidence established a sustained, dishonest and profit-making deception involving the fictitious Decoy Dolls agency and earlier conduct involving a false name. Her unchanged attitude towards that conduct justified the present-tense description. The allegation concerning dishonesty and aliases was substantially true only to the extent established by the deception of the cross-dresser and the false names used by associates. The later use of names in telephone and online-chat interactions did not itself amount to fraud. Those details did not add to the sting in any event.
3. The allegations that Ms Rodoy trolled Optical Express and its staff online, and that her conduct gave reasonable grounds to suspect a risk to staff safety, were substantially true. In this context trolling required online conduct motivated by an intention to offend, provoke or upset as an end in itself, rather than merely campaigning. The evidence concerning personal attacks, publication of contact and home details, abuse of staff and the severed-pig’s-head image established both meanings. The police-involvement statement was also true.
4. Qualified privilege. The letters were sent within existing clinical and commercial relationships. The patients had an interest in receiving information relevant to whether they should involve Ms Rodoy in their dealings with Optical Express. There was therefore a reciprocal duty or interest sufficient to attract qualified privilege.
5. Malice. The privilege was not defeated. Mr Moulsdale was treated as the publisher because he drafted the wording and directed its use. He honestly believed the allegations to be true and acted to protect what he regarded as legitimate business and patient interests. Personal dislike and disapproval did not establish a dominant improper motive.
6. The claim therefore failed on truth and qualified privilege. No relief arose for determination.