Charles Northcott v David Hundeyin
[2024] EWHC 2704 (KB)
Simon Schofield v Politicalite Limited & Anor
11 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 543 (KB)
High Court
A website falsely accused a theatre producer of grooming children. He sued and won, getting £90,000 in damages, a court order stopping them from publishing the lie again, and making them publish a summary of the court's decision. The website had to pay his legal fees too.
Key Facts
- •Simon Schofield, a theatrical producer, sued Politicalite Ltd and Jordan Kendall for libel, malicious falsehood, and misuse of private information.
- •The defendants published an article falsely accusing Schofield of grooming children.
- •The defendants did not appear in court.
- •Schofield won the case by default.
- •The article was shared widely online, causing Schofield significant reputational and emotional harm, including loss of business.
Legal Principles
Assessment of damages in defamation cases considers damage to reputation, vindication, and distress.
CPR 12.12(1), Barron v Vines, Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 2053 (QB)
In malicious falsehood, the claimant must prove an untrue statement published maliciously, causing pecuniary damage (unless exempted by Defamation Act 1952, s.3).
Defamation Act 1952, s.3, Duncan and Neill on Defamation
Damages in misuse of private information compensate for material and non-material damage, including distress and loss of dignity.
Sicri v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 3541 (QB)
Injunctions must be proportionate to the legitimate aim (here, protecting reputation), considering Article 8 ECHR.
Sloutsker v Romanova
Section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 allows courts to order publication of a judgment summary.
Defamation Act 2013, s.12, Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC 3525 (QB)
Outcomes
Damages awarded: £90,000.
Gravity of the allegations, extent of publication (estimated 20,000-30,000 primary readers plus significant online percolation), emotional harm to Schofield and his family, and defendants' aggravating conduct.
Injunction granted.
Real prospect of republication, no defence offered by defendants.
Order under s.12 Defamation Act 2013 made.
To publish a summary of the judgment on the defendants' website and social media to counteract the original libel's reach.
Defendants to pay claimant's costs: £35,000.
Standard costs order, summarily assessed.