Aaronson v Stones [2023] EWHC 2399 (KB) (13 October 2023)

Aaronson v Stones [2023] EWHC 2399 (KB) (13 October 2023)

The court found that the Defendant's statements, including Tweets and a YouTube interview, accused the Claimant of being a serial rapist and were defamatory at common law. The Defendant failed to establish the substantial truth of the allegations, as the evidence did not support that the Claimant raped Tannor Reed or abused his position as alleged. The Defendant's reliance on the public interest defence also failed, as he did not have a reasonable belief in the truth of the allegations and did not act responsibly in publishing them. The publications caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation, particularly within the adult entertainment industry, and the Claimant was entitled to...

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2399 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Jack Aaronson aka Dominic Ford; Defendant: Marcus Stones aka Mickey Taylor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Truth Defence, Public Interest Defence, Social Media Publication, Reputational Damage
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Serious Harm Truth Defence Public Interest Defence Social Media Publication +1 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Aaronson aka Dominic Ford

Claimant

Marcus Stones aka Mickey Taylor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's statements were defamatory of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the statements caused or were likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation under s 1(1) Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's statements were substantially true (s 2 Defamation Act 2013)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant's statements, including Tweets and a YouTube interview, accused the Claimant of being a serial rapist and were defamatory at common law. The Defendant failed to establish the substantial truth of the allegations, as the evidence did not support that the Claimant raped Tannor Reed or abused his position as alleged. The Defendant's reliance on the public interest defence also failed, as he did not have a reasonable belief in the truth of the allegations and did not act responsibly in publishing them. The publications caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation, particularly within the adult entertainment industry, and the Claimant was entitled to...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • The Defendant is to pay damages to the Claimant for libel.
  • The Defendant is restrained from further publishing the same or similar allegations.