James Wilson v James Mendelsohn & Ors
[2024] EWHC 821 (KB)
James Wilson v James Mendelsohn & Anor
9 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 231 (KB)
High Court
Someone posted mean things about a guy online, then other people shared them. A court case followed, and the judge decided there's enough evidence to see if the mean things were true and if the people who shared them should be punished.
Key Facts
- •James Wilson, a part-time law lecturer and non-practising solicitor, sued James Mendelsohn, Peter Newbon (deceased), and Edward Cantor for libel, misuse of private information, harassment, and breach of data rights.
- •The case largely stemmed from a Facebook post by "Ms K" containing a photo of Wilson and allegations of harassing behaviour outside a school.
- •The Facebook post was later republished in Twitter threads by Newbon and Cantor, with additional comments.
- •Mendelsohn sent the Facebook post screenshot to Newbon, who then republished it.
- •Preliminary issues were tried concerning the meaning of the Facebook post and tweets, and whether they were defamatory.
- •Newbon died during the proceedings, leading to a settlement with his estate.
Legal Principles
Definition of Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Hayden v Dickinson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)
Serious Harm Requirement for Libel under the Defamation Act 2013
Defamation Act 2013, section 1(1)
Application of GDPR to Personal or Household Activities
General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Recital 18
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Misuse of Private Information Claims
ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5
Jameel Abuse of Process
Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75
Outcomes
Harassment claim against Mendelsohn partially successful; claim against Cantor dismissed.
Mendelsohn's actions in republishing the Facebook post constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment. Cantor's single tweet did not.
Libel claims against Mendelsohn proceed to trial.
The court found that the defamatory meaning was serious enough, and further evidence on publication was needed.
GDPR claim against Cantor proceeds to trial.
The court deemed Cantor's tweet not to be a purely personal or household activity, making the GDPR applicable.
Misuse of private information claims proceed to trial.
The court found a real prospect of Wilson demonstrating a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Jameel abuse argument rejected.
The court found that the claims were not an abuse of process given the potential for vindication and the seriousness of the allegations.