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 due to their absence and failure to engage; the Claimant proved the defamatory statements referred to him, were published by the Defendants, and caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The Claimant is entitled to damages and injunctive relief.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3363 (QB)
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
Defamation Claim / Final Judgment After Trial; Defendants Absent, Defence Struck Out
Outcome
Claim allowed; Defendants' defence struck out; judgment for Claimant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Publication, Reference, Remedies, Quantum of Damages, Injunctive Relief
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Publication Reference Remedies Quantum of Damages +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 11 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

Defamation Claim / Final Judgment After Trial; Defendants Absent, Defence Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the programme referred to the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants published the 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 due to their absence and failure to engage; the Claimant proved the defamatory statements referred to him, were published by the Defendants, and caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The Claimant is entitled to damages and injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Defendants' defence struck out; judgment for Claimant.

Orders

  • General damages of £60,000 awarded to Claimant
  • Permanent injunction granted requiring First Defendant to remove offending material from website