Goldsmith v Bissett-Powell [2022] EWHC 1591 (QB) (27 June 2022)

Goldsmith v Bissett-Powell [2022] EWHC 1591 (QB) (27 June 2022)

The Defendant's posts about the café incident were substantially true: the Claimant behaved in a rude, bullying, and intimidating manner towards Ms Nicks, reducing her to tears and brandishing his stick, though not threatening to strike her. The posts did not cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation. The Defendant was not liable for third-party posts as a website operator, and there was no malice. The claim fails as the posts were true or protected by public interest, and no serious harm was established.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1591
Parties
Claimant: Rodney Goldsmith; Defendant: Michael Bissett-Powell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Website Operator Liability, Public Interest Defence, Truth Defence, Malice
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Website Operator Liability Public Interest Defence Truth Defence Malice

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodney Goldsmith

Claimant

Michael Bissett-Powell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's Facebook posts were defamatory of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was liable as a website operator for third-party posts under s 5 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the posts caused serious harm under s 1 Defamation Act 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's posts about the café incident were substantially true: the Claimant behaved in a rude, bullying, and intimidating manner towards Ms Nicks, reducing her to tears and brandishing his stick, though not threatening to strike her. The posts did not cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation. The Defendant was not liable for third-party posts as a website operator, and there was no malice. The claim fails as the posts were true or protected by public interest, and no serious harm was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded
  • No aggravated damages