Miller & Anor v Turner [2023] EWHC 2799 (KB) (08 November 2023)

Miller & Anor v Turner [2023] EWHC 2799 (KB) (08 November 2023)

The claimants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the publications complained of caused or were likely to cause serious harm to their reputations as required by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The evidence did not establish a legally relevant causal link between the defendant's publications and any serious reputational harm, given the broader context, the claimants' own conduct, and the lack of evidence from publishees. The defendant's counterclaim for harassment also failed.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2799 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Daniel Miller; Claimant: Nina Power; Defendant: Luke Turner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Counterclaim for Harassment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Test, Freedom of Expression, Defamatory Tendency, Section 1 Defamation Act 2013, Online Publication, Social Media Liability, Harassment Counterclaim
Defamation Media Law Harassment Human Rights Serious Harm Test Freedom of Expression Defamatory Tendency Section 1 Defamation Act 2013 +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Miller

Claimant

Nina Power

Claimant

Luke Turner

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Counterclaim for Harassment / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publications by the defendant caused or were likely to cause serious harm to the claimants' reputations under s.1 Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's statements were defamatory at common law
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's counterclaim for harassment is made out

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the publications complained of caused or were likely to cause serious harm to their reputations as required by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The evidence did not establish a legally relevant causal link between the defendant's publications and any serious reputational harm, given the broader context, the claimants' own conduct, and the lack of evidence from publishees. The defendant's counterclaim for harassment also failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimants' claim for defamation is dismissed.
  • The defendant's counterclaim for harassment is dismissed.