Key Facts
- •Dr Craig Wright sued Peter McCormack for libel over tweets and a YouTube video claiming Wright was a fraud and not Satoshi Nakamoto.
- •McCormack admitted the statements were defamatory but argued no serious harm was caused.
- •Wright initially presented a false case on serious harm, supported by false evidence, which he later abandoned.
- •The judge found Wright's original case on serious harm to be deliberately false.
- •The judge found that the publications did cause serious harm, but awarded only nominal damages (£1) due to Wright's fraudulent exaggeration of his claim.
- •Wright appealed on the grounds that the judge was wrong to reduce damages for litigation misconduct.
Legal Principles
A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013
In assessing damages for defamation, the court can take into account evidence admitted on another issue, including evidence of a claimant's bad reputation or their conduct during the litigation.
Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB), Campbell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1143
Damages in defamation serve to compensate for injury to reputation, vindicate the claimant's reputation, and account for distress.
Gatley on Libel and Slander (13th ed., 2022), para. 10-004, Monroe v Hopkins
The court may reduce damages to reflect the claimant’s bad reputation before or at the time of publication, but not solely due to post-publication misconduct.
Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 579, Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 116
In defamation, the court can consider the claimant's conduct up to and including trial when reducing damages.
Campbell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1143
Dishonest exaggeration of a claim does not generally lead to a reduction in damages in other torts, but the court may dismiss the entire claim in extreme cases.
Ul Haq v Shah [2009] EWCA Civ 542, Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd [2012] UKSC 26
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's decision to award only nominal damages was a legitimate application of defamation law. The claimant's deliberate falsehoods in his case on serious harm were relevant to the assessment of damages, particularly given that the libel concerned dishonesty. The court held that the judge's approach was consistent with the aims of compensation and vindication in defamation cases, and did not improperly reduce damages for litigation misconduct in the broader sense.