All posts

10.02.22

Defamed in the workplace: a guide to recent caselaw

Three cases heard in the past year in the High Court  – George v Cannell  [2021] EWHC 2988 (QB), Parris v Ajayi [2021] EWHC 285 (QB) and Kostakopolou v University of Warwick and others [2021] EWHC 3454 (QB) – have raised some of the difficulties confronting claimants who wish to bring a defamation claim in relation…

4.02.22

In defence of privacy and the judiciary: the fall-out from HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Brett Wilson LLP partner Iain Wilson tries to unpick some of the misreporting following the Court of Appeal’s decision in HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1810   Here we are again.  The press doesn’t like us having private lives and the government doesn’t like judges making decisions it disagrees…

5.01.22

£554m record divorce award against Dubai’s ruler

On 21 December 2021, the judgment in proceedings brought by Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein of Jordan against her ex-husband, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the current ruler of Dubai was published (Her Royal Highness Haya Bint Al Hussein v His Highness Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum [2021] EWFC 94). Sheikh Mohammed has been…

14.12.21

Press Release: Mensa pays Eugene Hopkinson libel damages

British Mensa Limited and its directors have agreed to pay defamation damages and costs to former director Eugene Hopkinson after publishing a series of statements that alleged he was responsible for a data leak and cyberattack and had deliberately attempted to harm Mensa and its membership. The settlement was announced at a hearing before Mr…

22.11.21

Should litigants in person get less leeway in libel cases?

The question of how much leeway a litigant-in-person should get when it comes to compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’) and court orders is a long-argued and fraught one.  The concept of litigants-in-person being treated in the same way as those professionally represented has been eroded over time with concessions here and indulgences there….

‘Fresh Evidence’ in Regulatory Appeals

In Narayanasamy v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd [2021] EWHC 2918 (Admin), the Appellant exercised his statutory right of appeal against a decision by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to strike him off following a finding of dishonesty and other serious misconduct. In seeking to overturn the judgment of the SDT, the Appellant was relying on…

23.07.21

Tommy Robinson ordered to pay £100,000 in damages to schoolboy he defamed on Facebook

On 22 July 2021, Mr Justice Nicklin handed down judgment in the Hijazi v Yaxley defamation proceedings (Yaxley-Lennon is popularly known by his pseudonym, Tommy Robinson).  The full judgment (Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon [2021] EWHC 2008 (QB)) can be found here. Early in the litigation Mr Yaxley-Lennon was represented by solicitors and lead Counsel.  In the…

8.07.21

Wagatha Christie: Court rules on strike out and summary judgment application

Background The ‘Wagatha Christie litigation’, as it is affectionately known, is the fascinating case of mistrust between friends and a sting operation to find a leak.  Colleen Rooney (wife of footballer Wayne) became concerned that ‘stories’ she was publishing to her private Instagram account – to which only her actual friends had access – were…

9.06.21

Number of defamation claims issued falls by over 50%

Annual data published on 3 June 2021 shows that defamation claims issued in 2020 in the Royal Courts of Justice (where the vast majority of defamation claims are issued) have fallen from 323 in 2019 to just 152 in 2020. The statistics show a continuing trend of claims being brought against non-media defendants (e.g. bloggers…

25.05.21

Claimant’s search for vindication backfires with finding he committed a serious sexual assault and could be described as a rapist

In Coker v Nwkanma [2021] EWHC 1011 (QB), the Claimant sued his former friend over an allegation that he had sexually assaulted a woman – anonymised in the proceedings as ‘X’ – at the Defendant’s home. Both parties were litigants-in-person, and, by the time the proceedings came to trial before Saini J, there remained ambiguities…