James Wilson v James Mendelsohn & Anor
[2023] EWHC 231 (KB)
James Wilson v James Mendelsohn & Ors
10 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 821 (KB)
High Court
Someone posted a mean picture and private info about another person online. The judge said the posts were untrue and hurtful and made the people who posted them pay money to the person they hurt. The judge also stopped them from posting anything else about the person.
Key Facts
- •James Wilson (Claimant), a legal academic, sued James Mendelsohn and Edward Cantor (Defendants) for defamation and misuse of private information.
- •The dispute stemmed from social media posts relating to an altercation between Wilson and Rifeth Akhtar, and confidential information from Wilson's time at the University of Huddersfield.
- •Mendelsohn shared a screenshot of a defamatory Facebook post about Wilson (the Screenshot) and confidential University information with Peter Newbon, who then published it on Twitter. Cantor later retweeted the Screenshot.
- •Newbon died, and claims against his estate were settled.
- •The defendants acted in person at trial, except for cross-examination of Wilson.
Legal Principles
Misuse of private information requires a two-stage test: (1) objective reasonable expectation of privacy; (2) balancing Article 8 (privacy) against Article 10 (freedom of expression).
ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5; [2022] AC 1158
Defamation requires proof that publication caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation (s1, Defamation Act 2013).
Defamation Act 2013, s1
Defences to defamation include truth (s2, Defamation Act 2013) and honest opinion (s3, Defamation Act 2013).
Defamation Act 2013, s2 & s3
Liability for republication of defamatory statements can arise from authorisation or reasonable foreseeability.
Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534
Damages in defamation compensate for injury to reputation, vindication, hurt feelings, and distress. Aggravation can increase damages but is not a distinct head of damage.
Broome v Cassell [1972] AC 1027; John v MGN [1997] QB 586; Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB)
Outcomes
Claim for defamation against Mendelsohn and Cantor succeeded.
Publication of the Screenshot caused serious harm to Wilson's reputation; defences of truth and honest opinion failed.
Claim for misuse of private information against Mendelsohn succeeded regarding the University Information.
Disclosure of the University Information breached Wilson's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Claim for misuse of private information against Mendelsohn and Cantor regarding the Screenshot failed.
Wilson did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained within the Screenshot.
Damages awarded: £22,500 against Mendelsohn for misuse of private information and republication of the Screenshot; £7,500 against Mendelsohn and Cantor jointly for Cantor's republication of the Screenshot.
Reflects the seriousness of the allegations, extent of publication, distress caused, and lack of apology.
Injunction granted to restrain further publication of the Screenshot and private information.
Standard remedy following successful defamation and misuse of private information claims.