Social media attacks: irrational conduct leads to injunction and damages for libel and harassment

In November 2021, the High Court of Justice granted an injunction and ordered damages in the sum of £35,000 in a claim for libel and harassment based on postings on social media platforms (Davies -v- Carter [2021] EWHC 3021 (QB)). The defendant, Gavin Carter, had carried out an ‘irrational’ near three-year campaign against Terri Davies, the claimant. 

The facts

The claimant was a marketing expert who, in 2019, held senior roles in a couple of businesses. The claimant is married to Richard Davies (Mr Davies) who, until around February 2018, was a director and 100% shareholder of a company known as Red Communications Ltd (RCL).  

A dispute arose between Mr Davies/RCL and one of RCL’s customers regarding an alleged defective/poor quality website. Believing he had a claim for breach of contract against RCL, between 2015 and 2017 the disgruntled client, the defendant, ‘attacked’ Mr Davies on social media as well as contacting his clients and associates. Mr Davies closed his social media accounts in response, at which point the defendant focused his social media attacks on the claimant. The defendant alleged that the claimant was involved in the business of RCL, which the claimant strongly denied.

Between June 2017 and early 2020, the defendant used various handles to post tweets attacking the claimant. The tweets alleged that the claimant should be ashamed and that she partook in ‘shameful’ behaviour. The defendant also tagged the claimant’s then employer, Mercer Ltd, stating she had been guilty of ‘unbelievable behaviour’. Subsequently, the claimant was accused of ‘dishonest and unscrupulous business practice’ and extorting money from a vulnerable person (being the defendant’s mother who funded the website). Such tweets were raised by the claimant’s employers with her as a reputational concern. The defendant then began to criticise the claimant on LinkedIn accounts targeting various of the claimant’s colleagues and business partners as well as networking or charity groups linked to the claimant.

The claimant was made redundant from Mercer Ltd and was informed by her second employer that she would need to resign if the defendant’s actions persisted. The court considered that a stigma had attached itself to the claimant in relation to her colleagues as a direct result of the defendant’s actions. In addition, the claimant suffered distress.

Libel

Broadly, a written statement published to a third party and identifying a claimant is libellous if it is defamatory in nature, ie it ‘tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people generally’ and has a ‘substantially adverse effect’ on the way that people would treat the claimant. Its publication must also cause or be likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.

The court held that the requirements for defamation were ‘easily satisfied’ by the defendant’s actions in the present case. The case concerned ‘allegations of seriously disreputable and dishonest business conduct’ and the defendant’s actions could be seen to have directly affected the claimant’s reputation and relationships with her employers.

Under section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013, ‘It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true’. The defendant sought to rely on this defence; however, fatally for the defendant, the court accepted that the claimant had absolutely nothing to do with RCL or the original dispute and, as such, the truth defence did ‘not get off the ground’. 

Harassment

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides a civil remedy where it can be shown that there is a course of conduct (two or more acts) that amount to harassment and the defendant knows, or ought to know, that such conduct amounts to harassment. 

Harassment is a ‘persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct, targeted at another person, which is calculated to and does cause that person alarm, fear or distress’ and ‘to cross the border from regrettable to the objectionable, the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability’. There is a defence if the conduct is reasonable in the circumstances.

A person may be harassed by the repeated publication of information and, here, the court held that the defendant’s conduct was oppressive and unacceptable. The significant number of publications which were intermittent and unpredictable for nearly three years, the repeated demands for money, the number of platforms utilised, the attempts to engage third parties in the matter, the dissemination of the claimant’s contact information and the fact that the claimant had been required to remove her entire presence on the internet. The defendant caused the claimant alarm and distress, and his conduct (said to be irrational and without foundation) could not be considered reasonable.

Damages

The claimant was successful in both of her claims and, as such, the court considered the appropriate measure of damages. 

Damages for libel and harassment aim to compensate the claimant for distress and hurt feelings. In that regard, the court awarded the claimant £25,000. Libel also gives rise to damages for actual injury to reputation and to serve as an outward and visible sign of vindication. The defendant was ordered to pay £10,000 under those heads. The claimant was also granted an injunction to prevent the defendant from continuing libel and harassment.

Comment

Social media attacks from disgruntled customers (or anyone) are becoming more and more common and can have a serious impact on a business, including its employees. This judgment gives an insight into the distress and reputational damage which such conduct may cause and the level of conduct which it is necessary to establish if a claim is to be successful. It also highlights the firm approach that may be taken by the court in order to properly restrain a perpetrator of harassment/libel and the level of compensation a victim could expect.  

For further assistance or information on libel and harassment claims, please contact Kate Steele.