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, persisted in her conduct with malice, refused to apologise, and defaulted in the proceedings. The court awarded £10,000 in damages (split equally between compensatory and aggravated damages) and granted a prohibitory injunction restraining further publication of the libels.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 860 (QB)
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 for damages and injunctive relief 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 internet defamation
  2. 2 Appropriateness of aggravated damages
  3. 3 Entitlement to injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant published seriously defamatory statements about the claimant on the internet, persisted in her conduct with malice, refused to apologise, and defaulted in the proceedings. The court awarded £10,000 in damages (split equally between compensatory and aggravated damages) and granted a prohibitory injunction restraining further publication of the libels.

Court Disposition

Claim for damages and injunctive relief granted

Orders

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