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, caused serious harm, and were not justified or honest opinion. Dr Guise was entitled to damages for libel. Mr Shah's counterclaim for defamation, harassment, and data protection infringement failed. Dr Guise's claim for harassment and data protection infringement also failed. The oral retainer agreement entitled Dr Guise to a fixed fee and a reasonable sum for additional work, but not to a shareholding or further commission.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1689
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
Claim for libel by Dr Guise against Mr Shah succeeded; counterclaims and other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Data Protection Act 1998, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Damages, Aggravated Damages, Serious Harm, Honest Opinion, Justification, Contractual Dispute
Defamation Data Protection Harassment Libel Data Protection Act 1998 Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Damages Aggravated Damages +4 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 26 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 on 'andrewguise.com' by Mr Shah were defamatory of Dr Guise and caused serious harm to reputation
  2. 2 Whether statements published on 'rajeevshahdental.com' by Dr Guise were defamatory of Mr Shah and caused serious harm
  3. 3 Whether either party was harassed by 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, caused serious harm, and were not justified or honest opinion. Dr Guise was entitled to damages for libel. Mr Shah's counterclaim for defamation, harassment, and data protection infringement failed. Dr Guise's claim for harassment and data protection infringement also failed. The oral retainer agreement entitled Dr Guise to a fixed fee and a reasonable sum for additional work, but not to a shareholding or further commission.

Court Disposition

Claim for libel by Dr Guise against Mr Shah succeeded; counterclaims and other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Mr Shah to pay Dr Guise £10,000 in general damages for libel, including aggravated damages.
  • No order on DPA claims as they added nothing to the libel proceedings.