Metropolitan International Schools Ltd (t/a Skillstrain and/or Train2game) v Designtechnica Corporation (t/a Digital Trends) & Ors [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB) (01 October 2010)

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd (t/a Skillstrain and/or Train2game) v Designtechnica Corporation (t/a Digital Trends) & Ors [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB) (01 October 2010)

The court found that the words published by the First Defendant bore the defamatory meanings alleged by the Claimant, were false, and were widely published within the jurisdiction, causing actual reputational harm. The sum of £50,000 was necessary to vindicate the Claimant's reputation.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2411
Parties
Claimant: Metropolitan International Schools Limited (T/A SkillsTrain and/or Train2Game); First Defendant: Designtechnica Corporation (T/A Digital Trends); Second Defendant: Google UK Limited; Third Defendant: Google Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Assessment of Damages Following Default Judgment Against First Defendant
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against the First Defendant for libel; damages assessed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Damages Assessment, Internet Publication, Jurisdiction, Corporate Reputation
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Damages Assessment Internet Publication Jurisdiction Corporate Reputation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metropolitan International Schools Limited (T/A SkillsTrain and/or Train2Game)

Claimant

Designtechnica Corporation (T/A Digital Trends)

First Defendant

Google UK Limited

Second Defendant

Google Inc

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Assessment of Damages Following Default Judgment Against First Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate amount of damages for libel published online by the First Defendant about the Claimant?
  2. 2 Did the published statements bear defamatory meanings and were they false?
  3. 3 What is the extent of publication and harm within the jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the words published by the First Defendant bore the defamatory meanings alleged by the Claimant, were false, and were widely published within the jurisdiction, causing actual reputational harm. The sum of £50,000 was necessary to vindicate the Claimant's reputation.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant against the First Defendant for libel; damages assessed.

Orders

  • First Defendant to pay £50,000 in damages to the Claimant.