Suttle v Walker

Suttle v Walker

The Defendant's Facebook and YouTube postings were defamatory and amounted to harassment. The Claimant is entitled to damages for reputational harm and distress, an injunction to prevent further harassment, and special damages for costs incurred. Default judgment stands as Defendant failed to engage or provide evidence.

Parties
Claimant: Kim Suttle; Defendant: Samantha Walker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Remedies Hearing After Default Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Online Harassment, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Defamation Act 2013, Damages Assessment, Social Media Liability
Defamation Harassment Data Protection Libel Online Harassment Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Defamation Act 2013 Damages Assessment +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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kim Suttle

Claimant

Samantha Walker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Remedies Hearing After Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's Facebook and YouTube postings constituted libel and harassment against the Claimant
  2. 2 Assessment of damages for libel and harassment
  3. 3 Appropriateness of injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's Facebook and YouTube postings were defamatory and amounted to harassment. The Claimant is entitled to damages for reputational harm and distress, an injunction to prevent further harassment, and special damages for costs incurred. Default judgment stands as Defendant failed to engage or provide evidence.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant

Orders

  • General damages of £40,000 awarded to Claimant
  • Special damages of £10,405 awarded to Claimant