Guise v Shah [2017] EWHC 1689 (QB) (06 July 2017)

Guise v Shah [2017] EWHC 1689 (QB) (06 July 2017)

The court found that Mr Shah's statements on 'andrewguise.com' were defamatory of Dr Guise, not substantially true, and caused serious harm to Dr Guise's reputation. Dr Guise was entitled to damages for libel and a limited award for breach of the Data Protection Act. Mr Shah's counterclaims for defamation, harassment, and DPA breach against Dr Guise failed. Neither party succeeded on harassment. Aggravated damages were awarded due to Mr Shah's unreasonable conduct in defence.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1689 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Guise; Defendant: Rajeev Shah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claimant succeeds in libel and DPA claims; Defendant's counterclaims dismissed; no harassment found for either party.
Legal Topics
Libel, Harassment, Data Protection Act 1998, Aggravated Damages, Serious Harm, Honest Opinion, Justification, Assessment of Damages
Defamation Data Protection Harassment Libel Data Protection Act 1998 Aggravated Damages Serious Harm Honest Opinion +2 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 7 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Guise

Claimant

Rajeev Shah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements published by Mr Shah on 'andrewguise.com' were defamatory of Dr Guise and caused serious harm to his reputation
  2. 2 Whether Dr Guise's statements on 'rajeevshahdental.com' were defamatory of Mr Shah
  3. 3 Whether either party harassed the other under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Shah's statements on 'andrewguise.com' were defamatory of Dr Guise, not substantially true, and caused serious harm to Dr Guise's reputation. Dr Guise was entitled to damages for libel and a limited award for breach of the Data Protection Act. Mr Shah's counterclaims for defamation, harassment, and DPA breach against Dr Guise failed. Neither party succeeded on harassment. Aggravated damages were awarded due to Mr Shah's unreasonable conduct in defence.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds in libel and DPA claims; Defendant's counterclaims dismissed; no harassment found for either party.

Orders

  • Mr Shah to pay Dr Guise £25,000 in general damages for libel, including aggravated damages.
  • Mr Shah to pay Dr Guise £2,500 for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.