Kim v Lee (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 231 (QB) (09 February 2021)

Kim v Lee (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 231 (QB) (09 February 2021)

The Defendant published eight posts on Facebook and Instagram that referred to the Claimant and bore defamatory meanings, including allegations of fraud, dishonesty, and professional misconduct, which were likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation. The Defendant, having been debarred from defending for non-compliance with a costs order, provided no evidence to support any defence. The Claimant proved the elements of libel, including serious harm, and was entitled to general and aggravated damages and injunctive relief.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 231
Parties
Claimant: Sang Youl Kim; Defendant: Sungmo Lee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / Final Judgment After Trial; Defendant Debarred From Defending Due to Non Compliance With Unless Order
Outcome
Claim allowed; judgment for the Claimant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Social Media Publication, Debarring Orders, Serious Harm Requirement, Translation Disputes, Aggravated Damages, Injunctive Relief
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Social Media Publication Debarring Orders Serious Harm Requirement Translation Disputes +2 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sang Youl Kim

Claimant

Sungmo Lee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / Final Judgment After Trial; Defendant Debarred From Defending Due to Non Compliance With Unless Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's social media posts were defamatory of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the posts referred to the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the words were published to third parties

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant published eight posts on Facebook and Instagram that referred to the Claimant and bore defamatory meanings, including allegations of fraud, dishonesty, and professional misconduct, which were likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation. The Defendant, having been debarred from defending for non-compliance with a costs order, provided no evidence to support any defence. The Claimant proved the elements of libel, including serious harm, and was entitled to general and aggravated damages and injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; judgment for the Claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay general and aggravated damages to the Claimant for libel
  • Defendant restrained by injunction from further publication of the defamatory posts or similar allegations