Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz & Anor

Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz & Anor

The defendants published multiple grave and defamatory allegations about the claimant to a substantial UK audience, causing serious harm to his reputation. The defendants failed to provide any evidence to support the truth, honest opinion, or public interest defences. The claimant was not responsible for the alleged sockpuppet trolling. The counterclaim in harassment failed for lack of evidence. The claimant is entitled to damages, injunctive relief, and publication of a summary judgment.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Matthew Garrett; Defendant: Dr Roy Schestowitz; Defendant: Mrs Rianne Schestowitz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Data Protection / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant on the defamation claim; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Statutory Defences, Damages, Injunctive Relief, Publication of Judgment Summary, Counterclaim in Harassment
Defamation Data Protection Harassment Libel Serious Harm Statutory Defences Damages Injunctive Relief +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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Matthew Garrett

Claimant

Dr Roy Schestowitz

Defendant

Mrs Rianne Schestowitz

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Data Protection / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publications complained of were defamatory of the claimant and caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation within the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether any of the statutory defences to defamation (truth, honest opinion, public interest) applied
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was responsible for the alleged sockpuppet trolling and associated conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants published multiple grave and defamatory allegations about the claimant to a substantial UK audience, causing serious harm to his reputation. The defendants failed to provide any evidence to support the truth, honest opinion, or public interest defences. The claimant was not responsible for the alleged sockpuppet trolling. The counterclaim in harassment failed for lack of evidence. The claimant is entitled to damages, injunctive relief, and publication of a summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant on the defamation claim; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the claimant £70,000 in damages.
  • Defendants to remove the defamatory publications from their websites.