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 evidence relied upon was not credible or corroborated, and the Claimant was found to be the victim of bullying rather than the perpetrator. The publications caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation, and the Defendant's sole defence of truth under s.2 Defamation Act 2013 failed.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2008 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Jamal Hijazi; Defendant: Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Libel / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Truth Defence, Serious Harm, Publication, Remedies
Defamation Media Law Libel Truth Defence Serious Harm Publication Remedies

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 / 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 Defendant's defence of truth under s.2 Defamation Act 2013 was established
  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 evidence relied upon was not credible or corroborated, and the Claimant was found to be the victim of bullying rather than the perpetrator. The publications caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation, and the Defendant's sole defence of truth under s.2 Defamation Act 2013 failed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages of £100,000 to the Claimant
  • Defendant restrained by injunction from repeating the defamatory allegations