Smith v Unknown Defendant, Pseudonym 'Likeicare' & Ors [2016] EWHC 1775 (QB) (15 July 2016)

Smith v Unknown Defendant, Pseudonym 'Likeicare' & Ors [2016] EWHC 1775 (QB) (15 July 2016)

The court found that the defendants published false and malicious defamatory statements about the claimant, causing serious harm to his reputation, and that the defendants were properly notified but chose not to participate. The requirements for default and summary judgment were met, justifying damages and injunctive relief.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1775
Parties
Claimant: Samuel Collingwood Smith; 1st Defendant: Unknown Defendant, pseudonym 'LikeICare'; 2nd Defendant: Unknown Defendant, pseudonym 'KiwiDynastia'; 3rd Defendant: Unknown Defendants, operators of website EncyclopediaDramatica.se
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim / Application for Default and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Default and summary judgment for the claimant against the second defendant; claim against first and third defendants stayed.
Legal Topics
Defamation by Internet Publication, Default Judgment, Summary Disposal, Injunctive Relief, Damages, Persons Unknown as Defendants
Defamation Civil Procedure Defamation by Internet Publication Default Judgment Summary Disposal Injunctive Relief Damages Persons Unknown as Defendants

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Collingwood Smith

Claimant

Unknown Defendant, pseudonym 'LikeICare'

1st Defendant

Unknown Defendant, pseudonym 'KiwiDynastia'

2nd Defendant

Unknown Defendants, operators of website EncyclopediaDramatica.se

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Claim / Application for Default and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief can be granted against unknown defendants for defamatory internet publications
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for default and summary judgment are met
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages and injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants published false and malicious defamatory statements about the claimant, causing serious harm to his reputation, and that the defendants were properly notified but chose not to participate. The requirements for default and summary judgment were met, justifying damages and injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Default and summary judgment for the claimant against the second defendant; claim against first and third defendants stayed.

Orders

  • Damages of £10,000 awarded to the claimant, subject to variation application within 14 days by the defendant
  • Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from repeating or publishing similar allegations