Gooderson v Qureshi [2022] EWHC 2977 (KB) (25 November 2022)

Gooderson v Qureshi [2022] EWHC 2977 (KB) (25 November 2022)

The defendant was responsible for the publication or procurement of all 21 defamatory online posts, which referred to the claimant and were false, using false names to disguise authorship and maximize reputational harm. Each post was individually defamatory at common law and satisfied the 'serious harm' requirement...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2977 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Stephen Gooderson; Defendant: Mohammad Ismail Ali Qureshi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim (libel) / Final Judgment After Trial; Defendant Debarred From Defending Due to Procedural Non Compliance
Outcome
Claim allowed; judgment for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Online Defamation, Serious Harm Requirement, Procedural Sanctions, Damages for Libel, Injunctive Relief
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Online Defamation Serious Harm Requirement Procedural Sanctions Damages for Libel Injunctive Relief

Source-derived case record

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Gooderson

Claimant

Mohammad Ismail Ali Qureshi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Claim (libel) / Final Judgment After Trial; Defendant Debarred From Defending Due to Procedural Non Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant published or procured publication of 21 defamatory online posts about the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the posts referred to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the words used were defamatory at common law

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was responsible for the publication or procurement of all 21 defamatory online posts, which referred to the claimant and were false, using false names to disguise authorship and maximize reputational harm. Each post was individually defamatory at common law and satisfied the 'serious harm' requirement of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The defendant's procedural defaults justified debarring him from defending, and the claimant was entitled to damages and injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; judgment for the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay general damages for libel in the sum of £25,000.
  • Defendant to pay aggravated damages in the sum of £7,500.