header-logo header-logo

15 September 2017
Issue: 7761 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Libel & slander

Singh v Weayou [2017] EWHC 2102 (QB), [2017] All ER (D) 63 (Aug)

The defendant, in an internal work email, had made libellous comments against the claimant, which caused the claimant serious harm to his reputation, pursuant to s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The Queen’s Bench Division, finding that the words complained of had been false, awarded the claimant damages in the sum of £25,965.07, part of which had been an award for aggravated damages made to reflect the defendant’s persistence in taking the matter to trial on defences he would have known had not been true.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll