Rafique & Anor v The Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 414 (QB) (28 February 2022)

Rafique & Anor v The Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 414 (QB) (28 February 2022)

Default judgment is appropriate as the second defendant was properly served, failed to respond, and the Particulars of Claim disclose valid causes of action for harassment and defamation. The pleaded meanings are not extravagant or unreal, and the serious harm test is met. An injunction is justified to prevent further harassment and defamatory statements, and costs are awarded to the claimants.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 414
Parties
First Claimant: Zobia Rafique; Second Claimant: Century One Estates Limited; First Defendant: The Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now Limited; Second Defendant: Aya Ismael Hoez
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation, Harassment, Data Protection) / Default Judgment and Injunction Application
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants against the second defendant by default. Injunction granted. Costs awarded to claimants.
Legal Topics
Libel, Slander, Harassment, Default Judgment, Injunction, Serious Harm, Costs
Defamation Harassment Civil Procedure Data Protection Libel Slander Default Judgment Injunction +2 more

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zobia Rafique

First Claimant

Century One Estates Limited

Second Claimant

The Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now Limited

First Defendant

Aya Ismael Hoez

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation, Harassment, Data Protection) / Default Judgment and Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be entered against the second defendant for harassment and defamation (libel and slander)
  2. 2 Whether an injunction should be granted against the second defendant to restrain further harassment and defamatory statements
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to costs against the second defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Default judgment is appropriate as the second defendant was properly served, failed to respond, and the Particulars of Claim disclose valid causes of action for harassment and defamation. The pleaded meanings are not extravagant or unreal, and the serious harm test is met. An injunction is justified to prevent further harassment and defamatory statements, and costs are awarded to the claimants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants against the second defendant by default. Injunction granted. Costs awarded to claimants.

Orders

  • Default judgment entered for claimants against second defendant for harassment and defamation (libel and slander)
  • Injunction granted restraining second defendant from further harassment and defamatory statements