Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon [2021] EWHC 2008 (QB) (22 July 2021)

Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon [2021] EWHC 2008 (QB) (22 July 2021)

The defendant failed to prove the substantial truth of the defamatory imputations. The court found the claimant did not participate in a violent gang assault on a girl or threaten to stab another child. The defendant's evidence was insufficient, unreliable, or not credible. The publications caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation. The claimant was entitled to damages and injunctive relief.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2008
Parties
Claimant: Jamal Hijazi; Defendant: Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Defence of Truth, Serious Harm to Reputation, Damages, Injunction, Publication of Judgment Summary
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Defence of Truth Serious Harm to Reputation Damages Injunction +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamal Hijazi

Claimant

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's statements in two Facebook videos were defamatory of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the imputations in the videos were substantially true under s.2 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the publications caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove the substantial truth of the defamatory imputations. The court found the claimant did not participate in a violent gang assault on a girl or threaten to stab another child. The defendant's evidence was insufficient, unreliable, or not credible. The publications caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation. The claimant was entitled to damages and injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay damages to the claimant in the sum of £100,000.
  • The defendant is injuncted from repeating the same or similar allegations about the claimant.