RODNEY GOLDSMITH v MICHAEL BISSETT-POWELL
The claim fails because the posts did not identify the Claimant to reasonable readers, did not cause serious harm to his reputation as required by s 1 Defamation Act 2013, and the Defendant succeeded on the defences of truth and public interest. The Defendant is not liable for third party posts, and there was no evidence of malice sufficient to defeat statutory defences.
- Parties
- Claimant: Rodney Goldsmith; Defendant: Michael Bissett-Powell
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 June 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Libel / Final Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed; judgment for the Defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Libel, Serious Harm, Truth Defence, Public Interest Defence, Identification, Malice, Defamation Act 2013, Social Media Liability
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rodney Goldsmith
Claimant
Michael Bissett-Powell
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Libel / Final Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Facebook posts complained of were defamatory of the Claimant
- 2 Whether the posts identified the Claimant
- 3 Whether the posts caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation under s 1 Defamation Act 2013
Ratio Decidendi
The claim fails because the posts did not identify the Claimant to reasonable readers, did not cause serious harm to his reputation as required by s 1 Defamation Act 2013, and the Defendant succeeded on the defences of truth and public interest. The Defendant is not liable for third party posts, and there was no evidence of malice sufficient to defeat statutory defences.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed; judgment for the Defendant.
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