Zhurba & Anor v Person(s) Unknown

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a claim for libel and breach of data protection initiated by the Plaintiff via a Claim Form dated 2 August 2022. The claim arose from the publication of an article headline on a website alleging that the Plaintiffs perpetrated a multimillion dollar fraud involving property sales and dishonest conduct. The Defendants are persons unknown, making service and jurisdictional issues complex. The Plaintiffs obtained court permission for alternative service by email and to serve out of jurisdiction, which the Defendants have not challenged. Despite some limited engagement, including the removal of the article from the original website following the claim, the article (or a similar version) was later published on a different website with no established link to the Defendants. The Defendants failed to file a response, resulting in default judgment on 28 February 2023. A pre-trial review was held on 16 June 2023 to clarify the relief sought, with the Plaintiffs seeking damages capped at £10,000 each and a final injunction against further publication of the defamatory allegations. The court expressed concerns about the use of default judgments against persons unknown and the potential impact of orders on third parties but noted that these issues were not pursued in this case.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should proceed to determine remedies following default judgment against persons unknown in a defamation and data protection claim.
2. The appropriate measure and nature of damages for libel in this context.
3. Whether a final injunction should be granted to restrain further publication of defamatory allegations by the Defendants.
4. The procedural and jurisdictional challenges involved in litigating against persons unknown and the applicability of the Defamation Act 2013, particularly section 9 and section 13.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded on the basis of the default judgment, applying CPR 12.12(1) which permits granting remedies based on the claimant’s unchallenged pleaded case without requiring further evidence or findings of fact against the defendant. The defamatory nature of the article and its natural and ordinary meaning were accepted as not artificial or without real prospect of success. The data protection claim was considered to add no substantive difference to the libel claim.

In assessing damages, the court applied established principles from key precedents, focusing on compensation for reputational harm and distress without double counting. The seriousness of the allegations was recognized as significant, reflecting on the Plaintiffs’ honesty and potentially amounting to criminal conduct. The extent of publication was inferred from available evidence and search engine prominence, despite limited direct data on website visits. Given the Plaintiffs’ voluntary cap on damages at £10,000 each, the court found this sum justified and proportionate.

Regarding the injunction, the court acknowledged the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to prevent further publication of substantially similar defamatory allegations, especially considering the threat to republish despite the original article’s removal. The court noted that any legitimate interests of the Defendants remain protected by their ability to apply to set aside the default judgment under CPR 13. The court also highlighted procedural and jurisdictional challenges inherent in litigating against persons unknown and the potential impact of orders on third parties, but these issues were not pursued in this case.

Holding and Implications

The court AWARDED DAMAGES OF £10,000 TO EACH PLAINTIFF and granted a FINAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants from republishing the defamatory allegations or similar statements. The decision concludes the matter subject to any application by the Defendants to set aside the default judgment. No broader precedent was established concerning the use of default judgments against persons unknown or the application of section 13 of the Defamation Act 2013 affecting third parties, as these issues were expressly reserved for future consideration.