Keith-Smith v Williams [2006] EWHC 860 (QB) (21 March 2006)

Keith-Smith v Williams [2006] EWHC 860 (QB) (21 March 2006)

The defendant published seriously defamatory statements about the claimant on the internet, failed to defend or justify her actions, and aggravated the harm by persisting in abusive conduct; damages of £10,000 (half compensatory, half aggravated) are awarded, and a prohibitory injunction is granted to restrain further publication of similar libels.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 860
Parties
Claimant: Michael Keith-Smith; Defendant: Tracey Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Assessment of Damages and Injunctive Relief Following Default Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; damages and injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Aggravated Damages, Injunctive Relief, Internet Publication
Tort Media Law Defamation Aggravated Damages Injunctive Relief Internet Publication

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Keith-Smith

Claimant

Tracey Williams

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Assessment of Damages and Injunctive Relief Following Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Quantum of damages for defamation via internet publication
  2. 2 Appropriateness and scope of injunctive relief
  3. 3 Assessment of aggravated damages

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant published seriously defamatory statements about the claimant on the internet, failed to defend or justify her actions, and aggravated the harm by persisting in abusive conduct; damages of £10,000 (half compensatory, half aggravated) are awarded, and a prohibitory injunction is granted to restrain further publication of similar libels.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; damages and injunction granted.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay £10,000 in damages (£5,000 compensatory, £5,000 aggravated) to the claimant.
  • Prohibitory injunction granted restraining the defendant from publishing or republishing the specified libels or similar libels in the future.