Monroe v Hopkins

Monroe v Hopkins

The tweets meant that Ms Monroe condoned and approved of vandalising war memorials, which is defamatory by common law standards. The publications were to thousands, caused real and substantial distress, and serious harm to reputation. The threshold under s 1 Defamation Act 2013 was met. Ms Monroe is entitled to damages of £24,000. No injunction is necessary.

Parties
Claimant: Jack Monroe; Defendant: Katie Hopkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; judgment for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Social Media Publications, Serious Harm Requirement, Damages Assessment
Defamation Media Law Libel Social Media Publications Serious Harm Requirement Damages Assessment

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Monroe

Claimant

Katie Hopkins

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What meanings were borne by the tweets?
  2. 2 Did the tweets have a defamatory tendency?
  3. 3 Did the publications cause or were likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation under s 1 Defamation Act 2013?

Ratio Decidendi

The tweets meant that Ms Monroe condoned and approved of vandalising war memorials, which is defamatory by common law standards. The publications were to thousands, caused real and substantial distress, and serious harm to reputation. The threshold under s 1 Defamation Act 2013 was met. Ms Monroe is entitled to damages of £24,000. No injunction is necessary.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; judgment for the claimant.

Orders

  • Damages awarded to claimant in the sum of £24,000 (£16,000 for the First Tweet, £8,000 for the Second Tweet).
  • No injunction granted.