Fentiman v Marsh [2019] EWHC 2099 (QB) (31 July 2019)

Fentiman v Marsh [2019] EWHC 2099 (QB) (31 July 2019)

The three posts published by the defendant bore the meanings alleged by the claimant, namely that he was responsible for illegal cyber-attacks and was subject to criminal proceedings, which are grave allegations. The evidence established that these publications caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation, both directly and through grapevine dissemination, including among colleagues, industry contacts, and his religious community. The requirements of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 were satisfied. The claimant was entitled to damages to compensate for the harm, vindicate his reputation, and account for the distress caused.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2099
Parties
Claimant: Warrick Fentiman; Defendant: Richard Marsh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed. Judgment for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Damages, Social Media Publications, Defamation Act 2013, Meaning of Defamatory Statements
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Damages Social Media Publications Defamation Act 2013 Meaning of Defamatory Statements

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 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warrick Fentiman

Claimant

Richard Marsh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in the three posts?
  2. 2 Did the publications cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate measure of damages for the libel?

Ratio Decidendi

The three posts published by the defendant bore the meanings alleged by the claimant, namely that he was responsible for illegal cyber-attacks and was subject to criminal proceedings, which are grave allegations. The evidence established that these publications caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation, both directly and through grapevine dissemination, including among colleagues, industry contacts, and his religious community. The requirements of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 were satisfied. The claimant was entitled to damages to compensate for the harm, vindicate his reputation, and account for the distress caused.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Judgment for the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the claimant in the sum of £60,000.
  • Defendant to pay the claimant's legal costs.