Sahota v Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Ltd (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 3363 (QB) (10 December 2021)

Sahota v Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Ltd (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 3363 (QB) (10 December 2021)

The Defendants' defence was struck out for non-attendance and failure to engage with the trial. The Claimant proved that the broadcast referred to him, was published by the Defendants, and caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The gravity and context of the statements, the Claimant's public standing, and the scale of publication justified an award of general damages and injunctive relief.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3363
Parties
Claimant: Mr Amrik Singh Sahota; Defendant: Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Limited; Defendant: Jaswant Singh Bharj (aka Thekedar); Defendant: Parminder Singh Bal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Libel/defamation / Final Judgment After Trial; Defendants' Defence Struck Out for Non Attendance
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Damages, Injunction, Summary Judgment Publication
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Damages Injunction Summary Judgment Publication

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

Parties

Mr Amrik Singh Sahota

Claimant

Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Limited

Defendant

Jaswant Singh Bharj (aka Thekedar)

Defendant

Parminder Singh Bal

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel/defamation / Final Judgment After Trial; Defendants' Defence Struck Out for Non Attendance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the broadcast referred to the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants published defamatory statements
  3. 3 Whether the statements caused or were likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants' defence was struck out for non-attendance and failure to engage with the trial. The Claimant proved that the broadcast referred to him, was published by the Defendants, and caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The gravity and context of the statements, the Claimant's public standing, and the scale of publication justified an award of general damages and injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • General damages of £60,000 awarded to the Claimant
  • Permanent injunction granted restraining further publication of the same or similar defamatory material