Dmitri Zhurba & Anor v Person(s) Unknown
[2023] EWHC 3535 (KB)
Charles Northcott v David Hundeyin
25 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2704 (KB)
High Court
A journalist won a libel case because another journalist wrote false things about him online. The court gave the winning journalist a lot of money because the lies hurt his career. The court also ordered the liar to admit he was wrong and to get the lies removed from the internet.
Key Facts
- •Charles Northcott (C), a BBC journalist, sued David Hundeyin (D), an investigative journalist, for libel.
- •D published an article online containing false allegations that C used his position to obtain sexual favors.
- •D did not defend the case and failed to appear in court.
- •The libel concerned C's work on the documentary 'Sex for Grades'.
- •D's article was published on Substack and promoted on Twitter.
- •D engaged in a post-publication campaign to maximize the harm caused to C.
Legal Principles
Default judgment can be entered under CPR Part 12 for failure to file an Acknowledgement of Service or Defence.
CPR Part 12
The court may proceed with a trial in the absence of a party under CPR r 39.3.
CPR r 39.3
In assessing damages for libel, the court considers damage to reputation, vindication of good name, and distress caused.
Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB)
Aggravated damages may be awarded for defendant's conduct that increases the claimant's hurt and distress.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB)
Section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 allows the court to order the defendant to publish a summary of the judgment.
Defamation Act 2013, s. 12
Section 13 of the Defamation Act 2013 allows the court to order the removal of defamatory statements from a website.
Defamation Act 2013, s. 13
Outcomes
Judgment for the claimant (C).
The defendant (D) failed to defend the libel claim and did not appear in court. The court found the allegations to be wholly untrue and awarded substantial damages.
Damages awarded: £95,000.
This includes aggravated damages due to the severity of the libel, the extent of publication, D's post-publication conduct, and the impact on C's reputation and career.
Order under s 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 requiring D to publish a summary of the judgment.
This order aims to vindicate C's reputation, even considering difficulties in enforcement due to D's non-engagement.
Order under s 13 of the Defamation Act 2013 requiring the removal of the defamatory parts of the article from relevant websites.
This addresses D's failure to comply with a previous injunction and aims to remove the libel from online platforms.