Oyston v Reed

The defendant's publications were seriously defamatory, untrue, widely disseminated, and aggravated by subsequent conduct including abusive communications to the claimant's wife and persistent repetition of the allegations. The claimant is entitled to £30,000 in damages and an injunction restraining further publication or harassment.

Parties: Claimant: Karl Samuel Oyston; Defendant: Stephen Reed
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 09 May 2016
Procedural Posture: Civil Defamation (libel) / Assessment of Damages and Injunctive Relief Following Default Judgment
Outcome: Judgment for the claimant. Damages and injunction granted.
Legal Topics: Libel, Aggravated Damages, Injunction, Default Judgment, Mitigation of Damages

Defamation Tort Law Civil Procedure Libel Aggravated Damages Injunction Default Judgment Mitigation of 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Karl Samuel Oyston

Claimant

Stephen Reed

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Assessment of Damages and Injunctive Relief Following Default Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defendant's online publications were defamatory of the claimant
2 Whether aggravated damages should be awarded
3 Whether an injunction restraining further publication should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant. Damages and injunction granted.

Orders

Defendant to pay claimant £30,000 in damages.
Defendant restrained by injunction from repeating the libel or harassing the claimant or his wife.