Rachel Riley v Laura Murray
The Defendant's Tweet caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation, was not substantially true, was not protected as honest opinion because the factual premise was not proved, and was not protected as a publication on a matter of public interest because the Defendant misrepresented the Claimant's words and failed to provide the necessary context. The Claimant is entitled to damages.
- Parties
- Claimant: Rachel Riley; Defendant: Laura Murray
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 20 December 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Defamation (libel) / Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Judgment for the Claimant
- Legal Topics
- Libel, Serious Harm, Truth Defence, Honest Opinion, Public Interest Defence, Damages
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rachel Riley
Claimant
Laura Murray
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 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 Whether the Defendant's Tweet was substantially true under s.2 Defamation Act 2013
- 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, was not substantially true, was not protected as honest opinion because the factual premise was not proved, and was not protected as a publication on a matter of public interest because the Defendant misrepresented the Claimant's words and failed to provide the necessary context. The Claimant is entitled to damages.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the Claimant
Orders
- The Defendant shall pay the Claimant £10,000 in damages.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment