Full case report
Keith Singh v Joseph Weayou
Reference  EWHC 2102 (QB)
Court Queen's Bench Division
Judge The Hon. Mrs Justice Nicola Davies DBE
Date of Judgment 11 Aug 2017
Libel – Malicious Falsehood – Serious Harm – Qualified Privilege – Honest Opinion – Truth – Malice – Damage
C and D were both psychiatric nursing professionals at a hospital in Roehampton. C was the Night Services Coordinator while D was a Health Care Assistant until May 2017. C had some managerial responsibility over D. On the 24 August 2015 at 7.36am D published an e-mail to a senior manager and the HR manager alleging sexual harassment, including sexual assault, and victimisation.
C brought an action for Defamation on the basis that the e-mail’s natural and ordinary meaning was that the C was guilty of sexual harassment and sexual assault, and victimisation once sexual advances had been spurned. D admitted C’s pleaded meaning. C also brought the claim in malicious falsehood asserting that the D published the e-mail maliciously after a shift swap request had been refused by C.
D pleaded truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege as a defence to the libel claim and asserted that the publication did not surmount ‘serious harm’ under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. D pleaded that the publication was true and not published maliciously in that he honestly believed it to be true.
- Was the publication entirely a statement of fact, or were parts of it opinion?
- Was the publication (substantially) true? The burden of proof fell on C in malicious falsehood and on D in libel.
- Was the publication malicious?
- Was there sufficient damage to satisfy the test of (a) ‘serious harm’ in libel under s.1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013; and/or (b) to prove ‘pecuniary loss’ in malicious falsehood (and/or s.3 of the Defamation Act 1952)?
- The publication consisted entirely of statements of fact.
- The publication, in its admitted meaning, was not true.
- The publication by D was malicious.
(a) The publication caused serious harm to the reputation of the C. Whilst the email was sent to only two people, the hospital was a small close-knit working environment where gossip was likely, and the Court had heard evidence on the effect of the publication on C’s relationships with co-workers. The false allegation of sexual assault was particularly damaging for an individual in C’s line of work, in a hospital dealing with vulnerable patients.
(b) The publication also caused pecuniary loss to the C due to the cost of medical expenses arising from stress-related conditions and C’s lost income from overtime shifts. There was no need to rely upon s.3 of the Defamation Act 1952.
Damage to reputation was calculated at £15,000 with a further £5,000 for aggravation. There was another £5,531.10 awarded for special damage with £433.97 interest, coming to £25,965.07, plus an additional amount of 10% as part of the indemnity costs ordered as the result of C’s unaccepted-and-beaten CPR Part 36 offer. C was also granted an injunction to restrain D from repeating the defamatory words or similar for a period of five years.
A case decided solidly on its facts, but perhaps notable for similar fact evidence (per O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police  2 AC 534) being relied upon to demonstrate malice on the part of D.
Brett Wilson for the Claimant
More from 5RB
“known for its indisputable quality in the areas of defamation, privacy, contempt and data protection.” Get the lowdown here.
New 3rd Edition of The Law of Privacy and the Media, published by OUP. Further details here.