Ovik Mktrchyan v 2Trom Media Group Ltd

In a defamation remedies hearing following judgment in default, the court may rely on unchallenged pleaded facts which were necessary to liability, while matters pleaded only for remedies remain at large for later determination. If an absent defendant has received proper notice and no adjournment is justified, the court may proceed under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 CPR 39.3, subject to its safeguards.

Damages must be necessary and proportionate to vindicate reputation and compensate reputational injury and distress. Gravity, scale, publisher, claimant’s standing and consequential harm are relevant. Aggravated damages may reflect post-publication conduct. A tailored injunction and a summary under Defamation Act 2013 s.12 may be ordered where necessary and proportionate. Costs may be summarily assessed on the indemnity basis in an exceptional case.

The claimant brought a defamation claim about an online article alleging that he was involved in an Uzbekistan corruption network and had used a bank acquisition to embezzle state funds and seize state assets. The claim was issued and served in 2025. Judgment in default of acknowledgment of service was entered against both defendants, with remedies deferred.

The defendants did not attend the remedies hearing or respond to the served documents. The court considered whether to proceed in their absence and determined damages, aggravated damages, final injunctive relief, publication of a summary under Defamation Act 2013 s.12, and costs.

Disposition. Judgment was entered for the claimant. The court awarded £105,000 in general and aggravated damages, granted final mandatory and prohibitory injunctions, ordered a summary of the judgment under Defamation Act 2013 s.12, and summarily assessed costs at £117,663.38 on the indemnity basis.

1. Proceeding in absence and default judgment. Proper service at the defendants’ registered addresses, full notice and the absence of any response justified proceeding under CPR 39.3. The court applied the approach in Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 2503 (QB) [2015] EMLR 637. A judgment in default under CPR 21.11(1) was a judicial determination of liability. The court could therefore rely on unchallenged pleaded matters which were necessary stepping stones to liability, applying Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown [2015] EWHC 2628 (Admin). Remedy-only matters remained at large, although the judge stated that nothing turned on that distinction in this case.
2. Damages. Applying Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321, the court assessed the gravity of the allegations, UK readership, the apparent identity of the publisher, the claimant’s professional standing and the consequential debanking harm. The publication formed part of a wider campaign and the defendants’ post-publication conduct aggravated the injury. A composite award of £105,000 was necessary and proportionate for vindication, reputational compensation and compensation for distress.
3. Injunction. The court granted orders requiring removal of the article and prohibiting publication of statements with the same effect. There was a real risk of repetition. Following ZAM v CFW [2013] EWHC 662 (QB) [2013] EMLR 565, the injunction was tailored and clear. The interference with freedom of expression was necessary and proportionate under Human Rights Act 1998 s.12(4).
4. Summary and costs. The refusal to engage with the proceedings justified a prominent, searchable summary under s.12, designed to reach the original audience, applying Northcott v Hundeyin [2024] EWHC 2704 (KB) [2025] EMLR 2. A short delay in serving the costs statement caused no prejudice and was immaterial, consistently with MacDonald v Taree Holdings [2021] 1 Costs LR 147. Total non-engagement made indemnity costs appropriate. The defendants retained liberty to apply under CPR 39.3(3)-(5).