Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
CJ Jones Solicitors LLP (t/a CJJ Law) v Sapsford [2026] EWHC 142 (KB) (30 January 2026)
Preliminary defamation ruling on emails alleging fraudulent legal fees. The court distinguished between statements of fact and opinion and found most were defamatory.
The Court of Appeal held that tweets calling Laurence Fox a racist did cause serious harm, but reduced defamation damages awarded to Simon Blake and Colin Seymour.
The High Court struck out and dismissed a defamation claim over a Facebook post, finding the pleadings and evidence did not show serious reputational harm.
Miller v Peake [2025] EWHC 453 (KB) (28 February 2025)
The High Court held that 12 Facebook posts by a parish councillor were defamatory of the claimant clerk, rejected truth, honest opinion and public interest defences, and awarded £20,000.
The claim was dismissed because the Claimant failed to provide any evidence, or a reasonable basis for expecting evidence at trial, that publication of the statement complained of caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation in the minds of the identified publishees or through republication. The evidence from publishees was uniformly that the letter had no adverse impact on the Claimant's reputation. The claim did not meet the statutory threshold for serious harm and had no real prospect of success.
Source excerpt
The defence of honest opinion succeeded because the facts indicated in the article and pleaded by the defendant were substantially true, and an honest commentator could have held the opinion expressed. The claimant failed to prove serious harm to his reputation, as the publication was not at the serious end of the spectrum and most readers would not take the comment seriously.
Source excerpt
Mr Fox's tweets labelling Mr Blake and Mr Seymour as 'paedophiles' were seriously harmful, defamatory, and baseless, causing or likely to cause serious harm to their reputations. The defence of qualified privilege (reply to attack) was not available as the response was disproportionate and irrelevant. Conversely, Mr Fox failed to establish that the tweets calling him a 'racist' caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation, given the context of ongoing public debate, his own conduct, and lack of causative evidence. Therefore, Mr Blake's and Mr Seymour's claims succeed; Mr Fox'…
Source excerpt
The claimant failed to demonstrate any real prospect of establishing that the internal email publications caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation, as required by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The evidence showed no adverse impact, and the publications were limited and internal. The claims were speculative and lacked substance. The misuse of private information claim did not meet the threshold of seriousness or actionable detriment. The claims were also an abuse of process under the Jameel jurisdiction, as any possible benefit was disproportionate to the costs and…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Mueen-Uddin’s defamation and GDPR claims were not an abuse of process and could proceed to trial.
BW Legal Services Ltd v Trustpilot A/S [2024] EWHC 1449 (KB) (12 June 2024)
The High Court granted summary judgment for Trustpilot in this libel claim, holding BW Legal had no real prospect of proving serious financial loss from the challenged reviews.
Explore more
