England and Wales Case Law

Nikoletta Read v Claudio di Giovanni & Ors

The claimant failed to meet the threshold for interim injunctive relief under s12(3) HRA for misuse of private information, libel, malicious falsehood, and harassment due to insufficient evidence of serious harm, lack of urgency, and delay. The bulk of any damage had already occurred, and there was no real risk of further harm pending trial. Therefore, the application for an interim injunction was refused.

Source excerpt

• Interim injunctions
• Libel
• Misuse of private information
• Malicious falsehood
• Harassment
• Delay

Read case analysis

Digital Isle Limited v Marcos Enterprise Limited & Anor

The High Court held that a complaint to Amazon accusing a rival seller of counterfeit Velcro products and trademark infringement was defamatory and contained both fact and opinion.

• Defamation of corporate claimant
• Trademark infringement
• Online platform publication
• Fact vs opinion
• Chase levels of meaning
• Defamation

Read case analysis

Prospect v Andrew Evans

A member of a trade union can defame that union as a matter of law due to the quasi-corporate status conferred by section 10 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, allowing the union to sue in tort, including defamation, in its own name. The statement in issue referred to the claimant and conveyed a defamatory meaning at Chase level 2, being an expression of opinion with the basis indicated in general terms.

Source excerpt

• Libel
• Malicious falsehood
• Trade union quasi-corporate status
• Defamation by member
• Natural and ordinary meaning
• Reference

Read case analysis

McAteer v Thoburn

McAteer v Thoburn [2025] EWHC 1900 (KB) (24 July 2025)

The High Court struck out a libel and malicious falsehood claim and granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding no real prospect of success.

• Libel
• Serious harm
• Qualified privilege
• Malice
• Strike out
• Summary judgment

Read case analysis

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) (31 January 2025)

The High Court set aside service out on D4, held Porkbun LLC was not a publisher or website operator, granted relief from sanctions, and dismissed the Claimants’ s.13 and Part 18 applications.

• Jurisdiction
• Relief from sanctions
• Website operator liability
• Costs
• Default judgment
• Service out of jurisdiction

Read case analysis

Frank Sinton v Maybourne Hotels Limited & Ors

The claimant has no real prospect of establishing malice or defeating the defence of qualified privilege in respect of the publications, nor of proving serious harm to reputation or the elements of malicious falsehood. Summary judgment is granted to the defendants on the defamation and malicious falsehood claims.

Source excerpt

• Qualified privilege
• Malice
• Summary judgment
• Publication
• Serious harm
• Abuse of process

Read case analysis

Samuels t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors v Henry

Samuels t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors v Henry [2024] EWHC 2898 (KB) (20 November 2024)

The High Court dismissed claims in malicious falsehood and libel after finding the claimant had not proved the defendant published three Google reviews.

• Publication of defamatory material
• Proof of publication
• Malice in malicious falsehood
• Serious harm in defamation
• Norwich pharmacal orders
• Defamation

Read case analysis

Jaqueline Samuels (t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors) v Christopher John Henry

The High Court dismissed consolidated claims over three Google reviews, finding the claimant had not proved the defendant published any of them.

• Publication
• Burden of proof
• Malice
• Serious harm
• Norwich pharmacal order
• Defamation

Read case analysis

Fiona George v Linda Cannell & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that section 3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 is forward-looking: a claimant need not prove actual pecuniary loss to succeed in malicious falsehood.

• Malicious falsehood
• Defamation
• Damages
• Interpretation of statutes
• Proof of harm
• Aggravated damages

Read case analysis

BHX v GRX & Anor

BHX v GRX & Anor [2021] EWHC 770 (QB) (29 March 2021)

High Court strike-out judgment on defamation, privacy, harassment, and malicious falsehood claims arising from a family dispute and related proceedings.

• Defamation act 2013
• Misuse of private information
• Protection from harassment act 1997
• Immunity from suit
• Malicious falsehood
• Family proceedings

Read case analysis