Riley v Murray [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB) (20 December 2021)

Riley v Murray [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB) (20 December 2021)

The Defendant's Tweet caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation as required by s.1 Defamation Act 2013, but the Defendant failed to prove the substantial truth of the factual allegation that the Claimant had publicly stated Jeremy Corbyn deserved to be violently attacked. The honest opinion and public interest defences also failed. Judgment was entered for the Claimant.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3437
Parties
Claimant: Rachel Riley; Defendant: Laura Murray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm to Reputation, Truth Defence, Honest Opinion Defence, Public Interest Defence, Social Media Publication
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm to Reputation Truth Defence Honest Opinion Defence Public Interest Defence Social Media Publication

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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rachel Riley

Claimant

Laura Murray

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's Tweet caused or was likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation under s.1 Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's Tweet was substantially true under s.2 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's Tweet was protected as honest opinion under s.3 Defamation Act 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's Tweet caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation as required by s.1 Defamation Act 2013, but the Defendant failed to prove the substantial truth of the factual allegation that the Claimant had publicly stated Jeremy Corbyn deserved to be violently attacked. The honest opinion and public interest defences also failed. Judgment was entered for the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the Claimant
  • Defendant to pay the Claimant's costs