Factual and Procedural Background
The Claimant commenced proceedings on 2 April 2024 against Company A and the Defendant for defamation and related relief, later amended to add a claim for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The pleaded case concerned conduct from early 2016 onwards, including a short consensual sexual encounter and, thereafter, a multi-year course of conduct said to amount to harassment and 22 allegedly libellous social media posts. The Claimant sued the Defendant for harassment and libel and sued Company A (the online platform proprietor) for continued publication after notice. The Defendant did not participate. Default judgment was entered against the Defendant and a remedies hearing was directed. At the remedies hearing before Judge Alegre the Claimant discontinued the claim against Company A. The judge found no reasonable justification for the Defendant's absence, considered the Claimant's unchallenged pleadings and evidence, and awarded a global figure of £25,000 for harassment and libel and granted injunctive relief. The Claimant appealed, and also sought late permission to amend the pleadings to assert global harm from foreign publication.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in assessing damages by focusing on reputational harm within this jurisdiction and thereby under-compensating the Claimant by disregarding harm caused by foreign publication.
- Whether, at the late stage of an appeal after default judgment and assessment of damages, permission should be granted to amend the particulars of claim to plead global/foreign publication and harm.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The judge materially erred by reducing damages on the basis that the Claimant's locus of reputation was outside the jurisdiction; damages should reflect harm globally.
- Authorities such as Shevill and Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn support recovery of damages covering global harm when the defendant's home court is England and Wales.
- The Claimant did not need to plead foreign law or explicit foreign publication to recover damages for global harm; the absence of such pleading should not preclude recovery given the global reach of internet publication.
- As a fallback, the Claimant sought retrospective permission to amend the particulars of claim shortly before the appeal to plead global harm and foreign actionability.
Respondent's/Defendant's Position
The Defendant did not appear, was not represented, and did not advance arguments in the remedies hearing or on the appeal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Blake v Fox [2024] EWHC 956 |
Comparator for high awards in libel (serious allegations). |
Relied on by Claimant for quantum; court distinguished it on extent of publication and awarded much less. |
| Aaronson v Stones [2023] EWHC 2399 |
Comparator for high awards in libel (serious allegations). |
Relied on by Claimant for quantum; court held present case had far more limited publication and evidence. |
| Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 |
Summary of general principles on assessment of damages for libel. |
Cited for the proposition that damages cannot be calculated mathematically and for guiding quantification; court applied those principles. |
| Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC 3525 |
Authority on reduction of awards where publication is limited in scale. |
Applied as a closer comparator: limited publication reduces quantum; used to justify lower award. |
| Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2021] EWHC 1797; [2022] EMLR 2 |
Approach to multiple libels in assessing quantum. |
Identified by the judge as a relevant authority to consider; court considered approach to multiple publications. |
| Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 912 |
Conventional view on assessment of damages following default judgment and need to prove causation/quantum. |
Relied on to support that pleaded liability is taken as proven but claimant must still make out causation and quantum. |
| HXZ v NMX [2025] EWHC 697 |
Recent authority referenced on jurisdiction and harm (as raised in directions). |
Identified for consideration by the judge; formed part of materials considered in assessing relevance of foreign harm. |
| Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v HM Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria De Borbon y Borbon [2023] EWHC 2478 |
Authority concerning Brussels regime allocation of jurisdiction (referred to by Claimant). |
Cited by Claimant; court held Brussels regime no longer applies post-Brexit and thus it did not assist. |
| Hussein v Hamilton Franks & Co Ltd [2013] EWHC 462 |
Emphasis on assessing reputational harm within this jurisdiction. |
Adopted approach: focus on reputation in this jurisdiction and evidence of injury here. |
| Shakil-Ur-Rahman v ARY Network Ltd [2016] EWHC 3119; [2017] 4 WLR 22 |
Emphasis on locus of reputation and limitation on considering harm outside jurisdiction; dismissal of harassment claim where harm was outside jurisdiction. |
Applied to restrict assessment to harm within jurisdiction for harassment; influenced approach to foreign harm. |
| Shevill v Presse Alliance SA [1995] 2 AC 18 |
Decision on Brussels Convention and forum selection in tort claims with cross-border publication. |
Claimant relied on it; court held it was not relevant post-Brexit and did not assist the Claimant's argument for global damages. |
| Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (2004) 41 EHRR |
Principle that damages aim to restore claimant to position had the libel not occurred (vindication). |
Cited to explain the remedial aim of damages; applied in assessing appropriate award. |
| Soriano v Forensic News LLC [2021] EWCA Civ 1952; [2022] QB 533 |
Procedural point that defendant must raise jurisdictional objections or be treated as accepting jurisdiction; CPR 11.1(5) referenced. |
Applied to note Defendant had not challenged jurisdiction and was treated as accepting it. |
| Barton v Wright Hassall [2018] 1 WLR 1119 |
Service within the jurisdiction subjects a defendant to the court's jurisdiction; common law jurisdiction principles. |
Applied to support that the court had jurisdiction over the Defendant. |
| New Century Media Ltd v Makhlay [2013] EWHC 3556 |
Particulars of claim function as a proxy for judgment on liability after default. |
Used to support that remedies should be determined on the basis of the unchallenged pleaded case. |
| Suttle v Walker [2019] EWHC 396 |
Principle that court proceeds to determine remedies on the basis of unchallenged pleaded case after default. |
Cited to justify assessing remedies on the basis of what was pleaded. |
| ReachLocal UK Ltd v Bennett [2014] EWHC 3405; [2015] EMLR 7 |
Authority referenced on foreign publication and actionability. |
Included among authorities summarised in Gatley and considered relevant to pleading foreign publication. |
| Ames v Spamhaus Project Ltd [2015] EWHC 127; [2015] 1 WLR 3409 |
Guidance on pleading and proof for foreign publication claims. |
Referred to in summary of established principles for foreign publication. |
| OPO v MLA [2014] EWCA Civ 109; [2015] EMLR 4 |
Discussed in relation to foreign publication and pleading. |
Included in the authorities underlying the principles cited from Gatley. |
| Brownlie v FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC [2021] UKSC 45; [2022] AC 995 (Brownlie II) |
Remarks by Lord Leggatt on pleading foreign law and the "default rule". |
Considered in argument; court held it did not displace established position that foreign law must be pleaded where applicable. |
| McLean v David Syme (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 611 |
Case law referenced in Gatley regarding foreign publication principles. |
One of the authorities underlying the Gatley summary relied upon by the court. |
| University of Glasgow v Economist Ltd [1997] EMLR 495 |
Referenced in Gatley summary on foreign publication/actionability. |
Included among authorities summarised and applied as part of established principles. |
| Lokhova v Longmuir [2017] EWHC 2579; [2017] EMLR 7 |
Analysis on late amendment and CPR 17.4(2) exceptions. |
Relied upon in assessing whether late amendment should be permitted; used to support refusal. |
| Associated Leisure Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1970] QB 451 |
Authority on last-minute/amendment pleadings described as "loose, ineffective pleading at the last hour". |
Quoted to characterise the proposed late amendment and support refusal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court identified three linked topics: (i) jurisdiction over claims for foreign publication; (ii) pleading and proof required for foreign publication claims; and (iii) assessment of damages following default judgment.
On jurisdiction the court held (a) post-Brexit the Brussels regime decisions relied upon by the Claimant (Shevill, Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn) do not assist; (b) the English court had jurisdiction because the Defendant was served here and did not challenge jurisdiction; and (c) the real issue was whether the Claimant had established a legal and factual basis entitling him to recover damages for reputational harm abroad, not mere jurisdiction.
On pleading and proof the court adopted the summary in Gatley (as supported by authorities) that foreign publication claims are governed by the double-actionability principle for defamation: where foreign publication is not pleaded the claim is to be taken as limited to publication in England and Wales; where publication abroad is relied upon the claimant should plead publication in each jurisdiction and aver that the statements are actionable under the foreign law (subject to the presumption of similarity where appropriate). The court found the Amended Particulars of Claim did not plead foreign publication, did not aver foreign actionability, and contained very limited particularisation or evidence of harm either within this jurisdiction or globally. The judge had therefore been entitled to treat the pleaded case as not establishing a right to recover damages for reputational harm abroad.
On damages after default judgment the court accepted that liability in respect of pleaded facts is taken as established but emphasised that claimants must still make out causation and quantum. The procedural rules require particulars to give full details of the facts relied upon to support any claim for damages; these standards were not met. The court held the judge permissibly assessed damages by reference to the pleaded case, the limited evidence before her, the limited scale of publication, and the main locus of the Claimant's reputation being outside the jurisdiction. The judge's award of £25,000 (global for harassment and libel) was upheld as within her discretion given the findings on publication, harm and context.
Regarding the late application to amend, the court analysed jurisdictional and procedural obstacles (including HRA s 12(2) issues, the exceptional nature of widening a claim after judgment while maintaining default judgment, and limitation/CPR 17.4(2) considerations). The court also applied conventional rules on late amendments: unexplained delay, absence of service or notice to the Defendant, prejudice, and the deficient and equivocal drafting of the proposed amendment. For these reasons the retrospective amendment was refused.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The court affirmed the remedies hearing judge's award of £25,000 in respect of harassment and libel and refused the Claimant's late application to amend the particulars of claim to plead global harm.
Implications: The decision confirms that (a) post-Brexit Brussels-regime authorities do not override the common law and statutory framework governing foreign publication claims; (b) claimants seeking recovery for reputational harm abroad must plead and, where necessary, prove the foreign publication and actionability (subject to any applicable presumption of similarity); (c) after default judgment damages are assessed on the basis of the unchallenged pleaded case and the claimant must still make out causation and quantum; and (d) late, inadequately served, and equivocal applications to expand claims after judgment are liable to be refused. No broader change to established law was made.
This summary has anonymised the parties and participants in accordance with the source opinion.