[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Easeman v Ford [2016] EWHC 1576 (QB) (29 June 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/1576.html Cite as: [2016] EWHC 1576 (QB)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
LIVERPOOL DISTRICT REGISTRY

		Civil and Family Courts 35 Vernon Street Liverpool L2 2BX
		29/06/2016

Mr Justice Soole :

1. This is the hearing of the assessment of damages, together with a claim for other relief, in respect of this libel action by Mr Laurence Easeman against Mr Adam Ford.
2. Mr Easeman issued this claim on 15 July 2015 and served Particulars of Claim on 28 October 2015. Mr Ford failed to acknowledge service. Judgment was duly entered in default on 4 January 2016 for damages to be assessed. On 25 May 2016 Mr Justice Fraser gave further directions, including service by Mr Easeman of a second witness statement specifying the relief to be sought by him at the hearing for the assessment of damages, together with such other evidence as might be advised, by 8 June 2016; and for the Order and other documents to be served on Mr Ford at his last known address in Liverpool. He ordered the assessment of damages to be heard before me today.
3. Mr Easeman duly made a witness statement dated 8 June 2016. I am satisfied on the evidence provided to me that the Order of Mr Justice Fraser and the other documents have been duly served at Mr Ford's address. He has taken no part in these proceedings and has not appeared or been represented today.
4. Mr Easeman's second witness statement identifies the relief sought by him by reference to section 9 of the Defamation Act 1996. This provides for 'summary relief', namely :

"… such of the following as may be appropriate –

(a) a declaration that the statement was false and defamatory of the plaintiff;

(b) an order that the defendant publish or cause to be published a suitable correction and apology;

(c) damages not exceeding £10,000 or such other amount as may be prescribed by order of the Lord Chancellor;

(d) an order restraining the defendant from publishing or further publishing the matter complained of." (s.9(1)).

5. As a matter of jurisdiction I am satisfied that I may, if otherwise appropriate, grant all or any those four remedies. Although the previous Orders refer only to the assessment of damages, the Order of Mr Justice Fraser evidently envisaged a wider range of remedies. These have been identified in Mr Easeman's further witness statement which has been duly served on Mr Ford. This approach is also consistent with the observations of Tugendhat J in Robins v. Kordowski [2011] EWHC 1912 (QB) at paras.55-57 and Warby J in Brett Wilson LLP v. Persons Unknown etc. [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB) at paras.36-37.
6. I proceed on the basis of Mr Easeman's unchallenged and verified Particulars of Claim and two witness statements (respectively dated 25 May 2016 and 8 June 2016). In Brett Wilson and his earlier decision of Sloutsker v. Romanova [2015] EWHC 2053 (QB) Warby J left open the possibility of departure from that approach in cases where, for example, the Court concluded that the words complained of were clearly not defamatory in their tendency and/or the claimant's interpretation of the words was wildly extravagant and impossible : see Brett Wilson at paras.18-19. As will be apparent, this case provides no reasons for looking beyond the pleaded case and witness statements. I therefore summarise the claim accordingly.
7. Mr Easeman is a filmmaker and activist who has worked in the media for 20 years. The videos that he has made or appeared in have been seen more than 2 million times across 100 countries via YouTube. Mr Ford is a blogger and activist who publishes extensively on the Internet.
8. Mr Ford has for some time maintained a Twitter Profile and a weblog on Google's Blogger platform entitled "Infantile Disorder" ('the Blog'). At the date of the evidence the Twitter Profile had 1743 followers and was featured in over 60 Twitter Lists. The Blog has 21 followers on the Google Plus network and is featured in a prominent link on the Twitter Profile. Mr Ford maintains and/or is one of those responsible for a weblog on another platform (WordPress).
9. On 30 November 2013 Mr Ford first published on the Blog and the linked Twitter Profile statements falsely alleging that Mr Easeman is a 'fascist'. That blog post was subsequently removed. However on 21 October 2014 Mr Ford renewed his attack, adding the false allegation that Mr Easeman is an 'anti-semite and Nazi sympathiser'. I need not set out the details of the publications in any further detail but the evidence identifies further publications in these terms on 22 October 2014, 9 December 2014 and 10 January 2015. The weblog on the WordPress platform is entitled 'the Laurence Easeman is a Fascist Blog'.
10. Mr Easeman contacted Mr Ford in October 2014 to ask him to take his statements down. He received no response. The various posts have continued and there has been no response to this claim. Mr Ford has made no attempt to justify his allegations.
11. These words have been published by Mr Ford as part of a long-running and extensive campaign of online vilification and harassment of Mr Easeman.
12. The Particulars of Claim state, and I accept, that the natural and ordinary meaning of these words is that Mr Easeman is someone who holds very extreme and reprehensible racist right-wing views.
13. Their publication has caused serious harm to his reputation and extreme hurt, distress and embarrassment. The allegations have then been republished very widely in social and other online media of which the evidence provides many examples. The republication extended to the Guardian online which included the statement that he "…may have connections to far-right and possibly even neo-Nazi groups."
14. Mr Easeman says that the serious harm to his reputation has also had financial consequences. In December 2013 his media work brought him to the attention of Mr Russell Brand who in due course invited him to be a contributor, by way of a video interview, with a forthcoming book called 'Revolution'. A video was duly recorded by him. In 2014 Mr Brand enlisted his help on a housing campaign in East London; offered him participation in a YouTube Channel and for that purpose; introduced him to his business manager to negotiate the terms of an agreement; and invited him to join a debate panel in London for the launch of his book. The video interview also led to negotiations with major publishers, including Penguin Books, for Mr Easeman to write a book about monetary reform.
15. As a result of Mr Ford's online campaign of vilification, both Mr Brand and Penguin Books broke off negotiations with him. He estimates lost profits of £30,000 and £10,000 on those respective potential ventures. However he candidly accepts that these are guesstimates and that he does not have any evidence to support those specific sums.
16. I turn to the four heads of potential summary relief under s.9. The first is a declaration that Mr Ford's statements about Mr Easeman are false and defamatory. Mr Easeman is evidently entitled to such a declaration. In accordance with the modern practice this will be supported by the posting of this judgment on the bailii website.
17. The second potential remedy is for an order that the Mr Ford publish or cause to be published a suitable correction or apology. In principle there is every reason to make such an order. By s.9(2), in the absence of agreement from the defendant, the time manner form and place of publication have to be determined by the Court. If so there is an evident risk that Mr Easeman may incur further costs which may not in practice be recoverable from this defendant. Having considered the matter further today Mr Easeman has decided, for these understandable and pragmatic reasons alone, not to pursue this part of his application.
18. The third remedy is in respect of damages. By section 9(1)(c) these are limited to the total sum of £10,000. Mr Easeman claims general aggravated and special damages limited to that sum.
19. The purpose of general and aggravated damages for libel is three-fold. First, to compensate the claimant for distress and hurt feelings as a result of the publication; secondly, to compensate for the injury to reputation; and thirdly, to serve as an outward and visible sign of vindication so that any interested bystander can see from the sum awarded that there was indeed no truth in the allegations : see e.g. Farrell v. Kordowski [2011] EWHC 2140 (QB) per Lloyd Jones J (as he then was) at para.18.
20. As to general and aggravated damages, the evident and severe gravity of the allegations is aggravated by the particular features that (i) they were without foundation and, it must be inferred, made by Mr Ford maliciously; (ii) they have, as Mr Ford must have foreseen, been republished to a much wider audience than his own Twitter Profile and Blog; (iii) Mr Ford has made no attempt to apologise or indeed to respond to this claim.
21. As to special damages, there are obvious and understandable evidential difficulties for Mr Easeman in quantifying financial loss in respect of projects which were still the subject of negotiation. I am satisfied that he has suffered, at the least, a substantial and measurable loss of a chance of making profits through the aborted commercial plans and negotiations.
22. In any event, and regardless of special damages, in my judgment the gravity of the libel and the extent of its publication compel an award of general and aggravated damages in the maximum total of £10,000.
23. The final potential remedy is for an order restraining Mr Ford from publishing or further publishing his allegations. Mr Easeman is clearly entitled to this remedy and an order in appropriate terms will be drawn up.
24. As a litigant in person Mr Easeman has incurred costs of £2160 (inclusive of VAT) in obtaining advice and assistance from solicitors and Counsel. Those costs are recoverable pursuant to CPR 46.5(3)(b) and I summarily assess his costs in that sum.