You Don't Have to Put Up With Online Harassment

22nd June 2023 By

In an era of easy, internet-based mass communication, reputations can, without a shred of justification, be destroyed at the click of a button. As a High Court case showed, however, victims of such behaviour can, with expert legal assistance, achieve both vindication and just compensation.

The case concerned the founder of a spiritual group who was the target of videos posted online and emails sent to recipients who possibly numbered in the thousands. They contained allegations of immoral and criminal conduct against him that were of the utmost gravity.

The publications caused great distress to both the founder and his family. Despite his extensive efforts to have the videos removed from the internet, they continued to surface from time to time, resulting in an exodus of members from his organisation. Some of the videos had received tens of thousands of views and he found himself constantly having to explain that the allegations were false.

He issued proceedings against two men who were said to be responsible for the publications, alleging defamation, harassment, breach of data protection and misuse of private information. Their defences to the claim were later struck out by a judge due to their failure to comply with court orders and judgment was entered against them.

One of them agreed to settle the claim against him by paying a global sum of more than £130,000 in damages and costs. He publicly apologised to the founder and accepted that the allegations were untrue, were seriously harmful and included some intrusive speculation into the founder’s private life. The proceedings continued against the other man, however.

In ordering the other man to pay £35,000 in damages, plus legal costs, the Court found that it was a case of serious online harassment. The award reflected the absence of an apology and was designed to vindicate the founder’s reputation. An injunction was issued which, amongst other things, forbade him from making any further publications concerning the founder.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...