Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB) (10 March 2017)

Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB) (10 March 2017)

The tweets bore the meaning that Monroe condoned and approved of vandalising war memorials, which is defamatory by common law standards. The publication was extensive and the serious harm requirement under s 1 Defamation Act 2013 was satisfied.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 433 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Jack Monroe; Defendant: Katie Hopkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / High Court Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Claimant succeeds; judgment for Monroe.
Legal Topics
Libel, Social Media Defamation, Serious Harm Requirement, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Publication and Reach, Aggravated Damages
Defamation Media Law Libel Social Media Defamation Serious Harm Requirement Meaning of Defamatory Statements Publication and Reach Aggravated 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Monroe

Claimant

Katie Hopkins

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / High Court Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What meanings were borne by the tweets?
  2. 2 Did those meanings have a defamatory tendency?
  3. 3 Has it been proved that the serious harm requirement is met under s 1 Defamation Act 2013?

Ratio Decidendi

The tweets bore the meaning that Monroe condoned and approved of vandalising war memorials, which is defamatory by common law standards. The publication was extensive and the serious harm requirement under s 1 Defamation Act 2013 was satisfied.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds; judgment for Monroe.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the claimant.
  • Defendant to pay costs.