Global Defamation Damages After Default Judgment Require Pleading of Foreign Publication and Double Actionability

Case: Ogunkami v Chia Neutral citation: [2026] EWCA Civ 588
Court: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)   Date: 13 May 2026
Appeal from: [2025] EWHC 1404 (KB) (Media and Communications List, Deputy High Court Judge)

1. Introduction

The claimant (domiciled abroad and working mainly outside England and Wales) obtained default judgment against the defendant for libel and harassment arising from a long-running course of conduct that included multiple social media posts alleging extremely serious criminality. At the remedies hearing, the High Court made a single global award of £25,000 for both libel and harassment, plus injunctions.

On appeal, the claimant argued that damages were “artificially low” because the High Court focused on reputational harm in England and Wales and did not compensate adequately for “global” reputational harm caused by online publication abroad. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused a very late attempt to amend the pleadings to add “global harm”.

2. Summary of the Judgment

  • Appeal dismissed: the High Court’s £25,000 award was upheld.
  • Core holding on “global” damages: the claimant had no right to additional damages for foreign publication because he did not plead foreign publication and did not plead foreign actionability (double actionability) or reliance on the presumption of similarity.
  • Default judgment principle: under CPR 12.12 the court grants only what the claimant is entitled to “on the statement of case”; damages (and causation/extent of harm) still require proof.
  • Brexit point: EU Brussels regime authorities (including Shevill v Presse Alliance SA and Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v HM Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria De Borbon y Borbon) could not assist because the Brussels regime does not apply to proceedings brought after 31 December 2020.
  • Late amendment refused: the attempted post-judgment, post-assessment, eve-of-appeal amendment was refused for lack of service/notice, likely jurisdictional obstacles (including s 12(2) HRA), limitation/“relation back” concerns, and because the proposed pleading was vague and defective.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents cited and their role

A. Jurisdiction, forum, and post-Brexit landscape

  • Barton v Wright Hassall [2018] 1 WLR 1119: cited for the general basis of jurisdiction—proper service within the jurisdiction subjects the defendant to the court’s jurisdiction in principle without territorial limit.
  • Soriano v Forensic News LLC [2021] EWCA Civ 1952, [2022] QB 533: used to explain that jurisdictional objections (including s 9 Defamation Act 2013) must be raised by the defendant; failure to do so amounts to acceptance (CPR 11.1(5)).
  • Shevill v Presse Alliance SA [1995] 2 AC 18 and Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v HM Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria De Borbon y Borbon [2023] EWHC 2478 (KB): treated as irrelevant to the claimant’s appeal because both concern the EU Brussels allocation rules, which do not apply to this post-transition claim (Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019).

B. Foreign publication in defamation: double actionability, pleading, and the presumption of similarity

The Court of Appeal anchored its reasoning in the established conflict-of-laws requirement that defamation remains subject to double actionability: the conduct must be actionable under English law and also under the law of the place of publication. The judgment drew heavily on Gatley on Libel and Slander (13th ed) and the following authorities.

  • Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356: affirmed double actionability at common law (defamation remains excluded from the statutory abolition in the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995).
  • McLean v David Syme (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 611, 617; University of Glasgow v Economist Ltd [1997] EMLR 495: cited via Gatley as part of the long-standing approach to pleading and proving foreign publication.
  • ReachLocal UK Ltd v Bennett [2014] EWHC 3405 (QB), [2015] EMLR 7; Ames v Spamhaus Project Ltd [2015] EWHC 127 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 3409; OPO v MLA [2014] EWCA Civ 109, [2015] EMLR 4: treated as consistent with the orthodox approach that foreign actionability can be pleaded with reliance on the presumption of similarity (rather than ignoring foreign law altogether).
  • Brownlie v FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC [2021] UKSC 45, [2022] AC 995 (Brownlie II): relied on by the claimant, but distinguished. The Court of Appeal read it as not supporting a “default rule” allowing a claimant to bypass foreign law where it plainly applies; it reaffirmed that foreign law, when relied on, must be pleaded, and that conflict rules remain relevant.
  • Qatar Airways Group QCSC v Middle East News FZ LLC [2020] EWHC 2975 (QB): also distinguished; it supported pleading foreign actionability and using the presumption of similarity—again not a licence to plead nothing about foreign law/actionability.

C. Default judgment and damages assessment

  • New Century Media Ltd v Makhlay [2013] EWHC 3556 (QB): relied on for the idea that pleaded particulars function as a proxy for a liability judgment upon default.
  • Suttle v Walker [2019] EWHC 396 (QB): the remedies inquiry proceeds on the basis of the unchallenged pleaded case; remedies must still be those merited by what is pleaded.
  • Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 912 (KB): adopted as reflecting conventional practice—default does not compel the court to accept assertions on the type and level of loss; causation/quantum still must be made out.

D. Quantum comparators and damages principles (background context)

  • Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB): used for general principles on assessing defamation damages.
  • Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC 3525 (QB): used to illustrate the non-mathematical nature of awards and the significance of scale of publication and evidential detail.
  • Blake v Fox [2024] EWHC 956 (KB) and Aaronson v Stones [2023] EWHC 2399 (KB): invoked by the claimant as high-end comparators; distinguished due to much broader publication and stronger evidence of harm.
  • Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (2004) 41 EHRR: invoked for the restorative function of damages and the need for vindication, not merely compensation.
  • Hussein v Hamilton Franks & Co Ltd [2013] EWHC 462 (QB) and Shakil-Ur-Rahman v ARY Network Ltd [2016] EWHC 3119 (QB), [2017] 4 WLR 22: referenced in the High Court’s “locus of reputation” analysis; the Court of Appeal treated the High Court’s use of these as legitimate for assessing harm within the jurisdiction on the pleaded case.

3.2 Legal reasoning

A. The appeal issue was not “jurisdiction to hear global harm” but “entitlement to recover it”

The Court of Appeal reframed the claimant’s argument. The High Court did not deny power to hear claims involving foreign publication. The real question was whether the claimant had established a legal and factual basis to recover damages for harm caused by publication abroad.

B. The orthodox structure of a foreign-publication defamation claim

Drawing from Gatley and authority, the Court of Appeal treated the following as settled practice:

  • If foreign publication is not pleaded, the claim is treated as limited to England and Wales.
  • Foreign publication should be pleaded as separate causes of action per jurisdiction, with an averment of foreign actionability.
  • The claimant may invoke the presumption of similarity (foreign law presumed same as English law absent evidence to the contrary), shifting the burden to the defendant.
  • The presumption is discretionary and may be declined if it is known/improbable that foreign law matches English law.
  • (As a developing point) serious harm under s 1(1) Defamation Act 2013 may be required to be shown in relation to foreign publication too.

C. Why the claimant failed on the pleadings and evidence actually advanced

The claimant’s Amended Particulars of Claim did not expressly allege foreign publication or reputational harm abroad, did not identify where publication occurred, and did not plead double actionability or similarity. Given CPR 12.12(1), the claimant could not obtain a damages award for matters not merited by the statement of case.

Separately, even in default, damages and causation require proof. The Court of Appeal endorsed the High Court’s conclusion that evidence of reputational harm was “very limited” both domestically and globally, and that publication appeared modest in scale (inferences drawn from engagement metrics).

D. EU allocation rules could not be used to sidestep conflict-of-laws requirements

The claimant’s reliance on Shevill v Presse Alliance SA and Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v HM Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria De Borbon y Borbon failed because:

  • they addressed EU jurisdiction allocation (Brussels instruments), not the substantive requirements for pleading and proving foreign-law actionability in defamation; and
  • in any event, the Brussels regime does not apply to proceedings commenced after the end of the Brexit transition period.

E. The refusal of the late amendment: procedure, limitation, fairness, and quality of pleading

The Court of Appeal refused permission to amend shortly before the appeal hearing because:

  • Notice/service defects: the application was not issued until the hearing day and had not been served; there was no reliable proof the respondent (in custody) had notice.
  • Limitation and relation back: the amendment would introduce new claims that would be time-barred if brought separately, depriving the respondent of a limitation defence.
  • Possible jurisdictional obstacles: including s 12(2) Human Rights Act 1998 concerns where relief affects freedom of expression without proper notice.
  • Overriding objective: the lateness was unexplained and unjustified.
  • Defective substance: the proposed amendment was unclear and internally inconsistent as to which foreign jurisdictions were in play, alleged harm in Dubai without pleading publication there, and did not address how it would overcome the High Court’s factual findings.

The court drew on Lokhova v Longmuir [2017] EWHC 2579 (QB), [2017] EMLR 7 (late amendment/limitation analysis) and echoed the caution in Associated Leisure Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1970] QB 451 against last-minute, ineffective pleading.

3.3 Impact

  • Practical pleading discipline for “global” online libel: claimants cannot assume that internet accessibility converts an England and Wales claim into a worldwide damages claim. They must plead foreign publication and foreign actionability (or similarity), and prove the harm they say occurred.
  • Default judgment is not a damages shortcut: even where liability is fixed by default, courts will scrutinise evidence of publication, harm, causation, and will confine relief to what is supported by the statement of case.
  • Post-Brexit clarity: EU Brussels allocation authorities are not an available framework for claims commenced after 31 December 2020; common law/statute govern, with s 9 Defamation Act 2013 as the principal statutory gatekeeper for non-UK domiciled defendants (if raised).
  • Late amendments face steep barriers in defamation: especially where they would expand territorial scope, raise limitation issues, and affect Article 10-related procedural protections.

4. Complex concepts simplified

4.1 “Foreign publication” in defamation

A defamatory statement is “published” where it is communicated to a third party (read/heard/seen) outside the claimant. If people read a post in multiple countries, that can create multiple publications in multiple places.

4.2 Double actionability

For defamation involving publication abroad, English conflict rules generally require the claimant to show the publication is actionable under: (i) English law; and (ii) the law of the country where the publication occurred.

4.3 Presumption of similarity

If a claimant pleads that the foreign publication is actionable under the foreign law, the court may (unless shown otherwise) assume foreign law is substantially similar to English law. But the court need not apply the presumption if it would be unsafe or unrealistic.

4.4 Default judgment and CPR 12.12

Default judgment fixes liability because the defendant failed to participate. But remedies—especially damages—remain confined to what is pleaded and what the claimant proves in evidence.

5. Conclusion

The Court of Appeal confirmed that obtaining defamation damages for reputational harm outside England and Wales is not a matter of rhetoric (“global harm”) but of disciplined pleading and proof: foreign publication must be pleaded, foreign actionability addressed (typically via the presumption of similarity), and harm evidenced. Where a claimant proceeds to default judgment without doing this, the court will not “top up” damages to reflect worldwide impact, and will be slow to permit late, limitation-defeating amendments—particularly where notice to the defendant and clear, jurisdiction-specific pleading are absent.