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, that those meanings were false, and that the scale and seriousness of the publication warranted substantial damages to vindicate the Claimant's reputation. The sum of £50,000 was awarded as necessary for vindication.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2411 (QB)
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 3 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 Whether the publications by the First Defendant were defamatory of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the defamatory meanings alleged by the Claimant were borne by the words complained of
  3. 3 Whether the allegations were false

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the words published by the First Defendant bore the defamatory meanings alleged by the Claimant, that those meanings were false, and that the scale and seriousness of the publication warranted substantial damages to vindicate the Claimant's reputation. The sum of £50,000 was awarded as necessary for vindication.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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