Online Defamation in UK Law

I do not accept that in every case evidence will be required to satisfy the serious harm test. Some statements are so obviously likely to cause serious harm to a person's reputation that this likelihood can be inferred.

It is very important when assessing the meaning of a Tweet not to be over-analytical. Largely, the meaning that an ordinary reasonable reader will receive from a Tweet is likely to be more impressionistic than, say, from a newspaper article which, simply in terms of the amount of time that it takes to read, allows for at least some element of reflection and consideration. The essential message that is being conveyed by a Tweet is likely to be absorbed quickly by the reader.

Orders under s.12 are discretionary both as to whether to order the publication of a summary and (if the parties do not agree) in what terms and where. Exercising the power to require a defendant to publish a summary of the Court's judgment is an interference with the defendant's Article 10 right. The interference may be capable of being justified in pursuit of the legitimate aim of “the protection of the reputation or rights of others”.

The second reason is that the imputations are very plainly expressions of opinion. If an article consists of a clearly stated non-defamatory account of the claimant's behaviour, coupled with the expression of a derogatory opinion about that behaviour, the fact that the opinion is clearly presented as such must mitigate its defamatory impact. The derogatory statement will be seen for what it is: someone's evaluation of the behaviour laid out for the reader's consideration.

For these reasons, I consider the better course is to fix a single award which, faithful to the principles by which damages in defamation are assessed, is solely to compensate the Claimant. The award can properly reflect any additional hurt and distress caused to the Claimant by the conduct of the Defendants.

In Dee, the Claimant had complained of an article published on the front page, but not of a further article, published on page 20 of a supplement in the same edition of the newspaper. The front-page article contained the words “ Full story: S20”. In the context of a summary judgment application, the Defendant argued that the Court should rule that the two articles had to be read together for the purposes of determining the single natural and ordinary meaning.

However, if by the time the costs management process takes place substantial costs have been incurred, one thing the court may do is to "record its comments on those costs": see PD3E 7.4. What the court will do is to "take those costs into account when considering the reasonableness and proportionality of all subsequent costs": ibid.