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 which, in their natural and ordinary meaning, accused the Claimant of serious dishonesty, fraud, and misconduct as a journalist, imputing conduct likely to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people. The words referred to the Claimant, were defamatory at common law, and their publication caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The Defendant, having been debarred from defending the claim, provided no evidence for his pleaded defences, which in any event failed on the facts and law. The Claimant was entitled to damages (including aggravated damages) and injunctive relief to restrain further...

Citation
[2021] EWHC 231 (QB)
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 Publications, Debarring Orders, Serious Harm Requirement, Translation Disputes, Injunctive Relief
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Social Media Publications Debarring Orders Serious Harm Requirement Translation Disputes +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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 published defamatory statements about the Claimant on social media
  2. 2 Whether the words referred to the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the words were defamatory at common law and caused or were likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation under s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant published eight posts on Facebook and Instagram which, in their natural and ordinary meaning, accused the Claimant of serious dishonesty, fraud, and misconduct as a journalist, imputing conduct likely to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people. The words referred to the Claimant, were defamatory at common law, and their publication caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The Defendant, having been debarred from defending the claim, provided no evidence for his pleaded defences, which in any event failed on the facts and law. The Claimant was entitled to damages (including aggravated damages) and injunctive relief to restrain further...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Judgment for the Claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay general damages for libel in the sum of £30,000, including aggravated damages.
  • Defendant restrained by injunction from publishing or causing to be published the same or similar defamatory allegations about the Claimant.