Charakida v Jackson

Charakida v Jackson

The claimant established that the defendant's blog post bore defamatory meanings imputing incompetence and unprofessional conduct, which caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation and resulted in patient cancellations. The defendant failed to respond or defend. The court granted default judgment, awarded general damages of £6,000, and issued an injunction restraining further publication, but refused special damages and a mandatory injunction to remove the blog due to insufficient evidence and lack of submissions.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Aikaterini Charakida; Defendant: Hollie Jackson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Default Judgment and Summary Disposal Application
Outcome
Default judgment for claimant; summary relief granted
Legal Topics
Libel, Default Judgment, Summary Disposal, Injunctions, Damages
Defamation Media Law Libel Default Judgment Summary Disposal Injunctions Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Aikaterini Charakida

Claimant

Hollie Jackson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Default Judgment and Summary Disposal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's blog post was defamatory of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant satisfied the serious harm requirement under s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to default judgment and summary relief under ss 8 and 9 of the Defamation Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant established that the defendant's blog post bore defamatory meanings imputing incompetence and unprofessional conduct, which caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation and resulted in patient cancellations. The defendant failed to respond or defend. The court granted default judgment, awarded general damages of £6,000, and issued an injunction restraining further publication, but refused special damages and a mandatory injunction to remove the blog due to insufficient evidence and lack of submissions.

Court Disposition

Default judgment for claimant; summary relief granted

Orders

  • General damages of £6,000 awarded to claimant
  • Injunction restraining defendant from publishing or causing publication of the defamatory or similar words, with proviso for regulatory or legal complaints