Miqaad Versi v Mohamed Husain (aka Ed Husain)
[2024] EWHC 1672 (KB)
Stephanie Hayden v Family Education Trust
24 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 950 (KB)
High Court
Someone tweeted something mean about another person and then deleted it quickly. The person who was insulted sued for libel, but the judge said there wasn't enough proof the tweet caused serious damage to their reputation because it was only up for 40 minutes. The lawsuit was thrown out.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Stephanie Hayden) sued Defendant (Family Education Trust) for libel over a tweet published on October 10, 2022, and deleted within 40 minutes.
- •The tweet, a quote tweet referencing other individuals involved in prior legal disputes with the claimant, allegedly referred to the claimant as a 'delusional transactivist' and criticized her use of court fee waivers.
- •The Defendant's Twitter account had 2,399 followers at the time of publication.
- •The claimant argued the tweet caused serious harm to her reputation, citing the defendant's status as a registered charity and the tweet's reach through retweets and mentions.
- •The defendant applied to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) or for summary judgment, arguing the claim lacked a reasonable cause of action and that the brief publication time prevented serious harm.
Legal Principles
Striking Out a Claim
CPR 3.4(2)
Summary Judgment
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) [15], Ashraf v Lester Dominic Solicitors & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 4
Serious Harm to Reputation (Defamation Act 2013, s.1)
Defamation Act 2013, s.1; Banks v Cadwalladr [2023] EWCA Civ 219; Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd & Anr [2018] QB 594
Reference/Identification in Defamation
Dyson & Ors v Channel Four Television Corporation & Anr [2023] EMLR 5
Jameel abuse of process
Tinkler v Ferguson [2020] 4 WLR 89
Outcomes
Application to strike out the claim on grounds of reference/identification refused.
The claimant's case, while needing further particulars, showed a basis for reference and identification through extrinsic evidence (prior tweets). The judge considered the reaction of another Twitter user (@dolphinmaria) as admissible evidence.
Summary judgment granted for the defendant on the grounds of serious harm to reputation.
The claimant's case on serious harm was purely inferential and lacked evidence of actual harm. The brief publication time (40 minutes) and limited engagement (5 likes/retweets) made a case for serious harm unrealistic. The judge rejected the claimant's argument that evidence might emerge later in the proceedings.
Application to strike out the claim as a Jameel abuse of process was not considered because summary judgement was granted.
The judge noted that if the claim on serious harm had had merit, the application wouldn't have succeeded due to the early stage of proceedings.
Defendant awarded costs of £12,500 (pre-VAT).
The judge made a summary assessment of costs, reducing the defendant's claimed amount to account for time spent on irrelevant evidence and the failure of aspects of the defendant's application.