Guise v Shah

Guise v Shah

The court found that Mr Shah published serious defamatory statements about Dr Guise, including an unjustified allegation of 'scam', which caused serious harm to Dr Guise's reputation. While some imputations were substantially true (such as unwarranted demands for payment and breach of confidence by Dr Guise), the most serious imputation was not justified. Mr Shah's actions, including publication of the website and arranging for a person to visit Dr Guise's home, amounted to harassment. Both parties breached the Data Protection Act by publishing inaccurate data, but no damages were awarded for DPA breaches as the libel award sufficed. Dr Guise's own conduct reduced the damages awarded for...

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Guise; Defendant: Rajeev Shah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant in part; damages and injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Libel, Breach of Confidence, Data Protection Act 1998, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Damages, Injunctions
Defamation Data Protection Harassment Libel Breach of Confidence Data Protection Act 1998 Protection From Harassment Act 1997 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 6 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Guise

Claimant

Rajeev Shah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements published on the 'andrewguise.com' website caused serious harm to Dr Guise's reputation under the Defamation Act 2013; whether the imputations made were substantially true; whether the defence of honest opinion applied; whether either party breached the Data Protection Act 1998; whether either party committed harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; assessment of damages and remedies.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Shah published serious defamatory statements about Dr Guise, including an unjustified allegation of 'scam', which caused serious harm to Dr Guise's reputation. While some imputations were substantially true (such as unwarranted demands for payment and breach of confidence by Dr Guise), the most serious imputation was not justified. Mr Shah's actions, including publication of the website and arranging for a person to visit Dr Guise's home, amounted to harassment. Both parties breached the Data Protection Act by publishing inaccurate data, but no damages were awarded for DPA breaches as the libel award sufficed. Dr Guise's own conduct reduced the damages awarded for...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant in part; damages and injunction granted.

Orders

  • Mr Shah to pay Dr Guise £25,000 in damages for libel.
  • Mr Shah to pay Dr Guise £3,000 in damages for harassment.