Jurisdictional considerations in libel and harassment claims

Defamation cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct show no sign of abating. In the latest such case, Ogunkanmi v Chia [2025] EWHC 1404 (KB), the Claimant, of Nigerian descent but resident in Dubai, and the Defendant, from Cameroon but living in London, met at a night club in London in 2015. The Claimant asked another woman, Priscia Okoye, to provide his telephone number to the Defendant, which she did, and the Claimant and Defendant subsequently had sex at the Claimant’s hotel.

Despite the fleeting nature of their sexual encounter, the Claimant and the Defendant remained in contact thereafter, on supposedly affable terms. However, in early 2016, the Claimant received a telephone call from the Defendant, accusing him of having had sex with Ms Okoye, which both the Claimant and Ms Okoye deny.

From that point, the Defendant started to harass the Claimant, by bombarding him and his colleagues with unwanted phone calls and messages, including making threats to “destroy” him. The Claimant also stated that the Defendant asked him for thousands of pounds, and, in late September 20216, the Claimant was informed that the Defendant had reported him to the police for rape, an allegation which he denied and in respect of which the police decided to take no further action in December 2017.

Between April 2018 and September 2022, the Defendant broadened her campaign of harassment by accusing the Claimant of rape in posts uploaded to Instagram and X.

On 3 April 2024, proceedings were issued by the Claimant against the Defendant for defamation and harassment. Meta Platforms Inc. was also sued, but these proceedings were discontinued by consent.

Default judgment

The Defendant failed to engage in the proceedings and, consequently, default judgment was entered against her on 13 February 2025, with a remedies hearing listed to determine the appropriate level of damages and whether the Claimant was entitled to any injunctive relief.

Remedies hearing

At remedies hearings, the Court is permitted to proceed on the basis of the unchallenged particulars of claim, unless the pleaded meanings are “wildly extravagant and impossible”. The judgment carefully considered:-

the potential impact of the Claimant’s limited connection to the jurisdiction on the quantum of damages; and
the application of section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the decision on a final injunction and whether an anti-harassment injunction would be granted where the Claimant is based abroad.

Damages

As to (i), Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre took account of the fact that the majority of the harm experienced in relation to the harassment claim was outside the jurisdiction and she considered, relying principally on what Sir David Eady had said Shakil-Ur-Rahman v ARY Network Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 3110, that she was obliged to disregard such evidence when considering damages.

In respect of the defamation claim, the Court noted that libel damages could be reduced where, as in the present case, England and Wales was not the main locus of the Claimant’s reputation. The Court also relied on Sir David Eady’s comments in Shakil-Ur-Rahman in this regard where he stated:-

“I must focus upon injury to the Claimant’s reputation in this jurisdiction and only that attributable to these broadcasts. I must put to one side, in so far as it is possible to do so, any damage caused to the esteem in which he was held elsewhere, and also any elements of distress brought about by other allegations or publications for which these Defendants are not responsible.”

Whilst the Judge accepted that some members of the Nigerian community in England had seen the Defendant’s posts, this was countered by “very limited and generalised evidence of harm” and a “lack of particularisation”.

Having weighed the gravity of the allegations and the backdrop of years of harassment against the scant evidence of harm, particularly in this jurisdiction, and the limited extent of publication within the jurisdiction more generally, the Judge considered that £25,000 was an appropriate global figure in damages for both the harassment and libel.

Injunction

The grant of a final injunction is subject to section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, since it affects the Defendant’s right to freedom of expression. Nevertheless, where the final injunction is a legitimate and proportionate interference with the freedom of expression, necessary for the protection of the reputation of the Claimant, it will be granted, and was so granted in the present case.

In relation to jurisdiction and injunctive relief in respect of harassment, the Court followed the approach of Mr Justice Ritchie in HXZ v NMX [2025] EWHC 697 where he recognised that a foreign claimant would need to return to England and Wales to manage his business interests and that an anti-harassment injunction should be granted in relation to apprehended breaches within the jurisdiction.

Comment

This case provides a useful reminder that claimants based abroad may still be able to obtain meaningful relief from the English courts, particularly when a defendant is also based here. The case also serves as a cautionary tale to claimants and their legal representatives to ensure that, when preparing witness statements, the evidence is focussed clearly on the areas which the Court would expect a claimant to address. In this case, a substantial portion of the Claimant’s evidence was disregarded because it did not contain the level of specificity required to satisfy the Court that the damage was primarily occasioned within the jurisdiction.

Shakil-Ur-Rahman is often cited to support the proposition that, for the English Court to have jurisdiction over a claim for harassment, the harassing effect must be felt on the claimant whilst they are within jurisdiction. This has been considered a slightly controversial decision by practitioners, not least because other cases have suggested that a claimant need not have suffered any impact to succeed with a harassment case, and this issue will therefore likely merit further consideration in future cases, as Mr Justice Nicklin suggested in Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v HM Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria De Borbon Y Borbon [2022] EWHC 668.