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 Mr Fentiman was responsible for an illegal cyber-attack and hacking, and that criminal charges were being brought against him. These allegations were grave, published to a substantial audience, and further disseminated by grapevine effect, causing serious harm to Mr Fentiman's reputation. The claimant is entitled to substantial damages for libel.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2099 (QB)
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, Aggravated Damages
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Damages Social Media Publications Aggravated Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 31 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 publications?
  2. 2 Did the words complained of cause serious harm to Mr Fentiman's reputation under section 1(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 Mr Fentiman was responsible for an illegal cyber-attack and hacking, and that criminal charges were being brought against him. These allegations were grave, published to a substantial audience, and further disseminated by grapevine effect, causing serious harm to Mr Fentiman's reputation. The claimant is entitled to substantial damages for libel.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Judgment for the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages of £60,000 to the claimant.
  • Defendant to pay the claimant's legal costs (subject to assessment).