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

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

The court found that the Defendant's posts, insofar as they referred to the Claimant, were substantially true: the Claimant did behave in a rude, bullying, and intimidating manner towards the café owner, reducing her to tears, and brandished his walking stick in a threatening way, though he did not threaten to strike her. The only post specifically identifying the Claimant was promptly edited to remove reference to him. The Defendant was not liable for third-party posts as an operator under s 5 DA 2013, and there was no malice. The Claimant failed to prove that the statements caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1591 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Rodney Goldsmith; Defendant: Michael Bissett-Powell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Defamation Act 2013, Public Interest Defence, Truth Defence, Website Operator Liability
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Defamation Act 2013 Public Interest Defence Truth Defence Website Operator Liability

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 4 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 (defamation) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant's posts, insofar as they referred to the Claimant, were substantially true: the Claimant did behave in a rude, bullying, and intimidating manner towards the café owner, reducing her to tears, and brandished his walking stick in a threatening way, though he did not threaten to strike her. The only post specifically identifying the Claimant was promptly edited to remove reference to him. The Defendant was not liable for third-party posts as an operator under s 5 DA 2013, and there was no malice. The Claimant failed to prove that the statements caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for libel dismissed
  • No damages awarded to the Claimant