![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Wozniak & Anor v Randall [2021] EWHC 2341 (QB) (19 August 2021) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/2341.html Cite as: [2021] EWHC 2341 (QB) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Heard at the County Court in North Shields
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
RICHARD WOZNIAK (1) BRIDGET KELLY (2) |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
CHLOE RANDALL |
Defendant |
____________________
The Defendant in person
Hearing dates: 19-21, 24-27 May 2021
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Soole :
"Isn't this charming?
The offensive individuals at the top of the hill are now attacking medical staff trying to visit their seriously ill patients! Just how low can they stoop in their spiteful campaign to steal a piece of land? Liars, thieves and bullies we know them to be; we know they have been brainwashing at least two vulnerable elderly village characters into further confusion and bewilderment. Now they are threatening the vital carer network. Shame on them!"
'Dr Wozniak and Ms Kelly are offensive individuals. They are attacking medical staff. They are running a spiteful campaign to steal a piece of land in Rosgill village near to Abbott House. They are liars, thieves and bullies. They have brainwashed at least two vulnerable elderly village people. They are also threatening the vital carer network'.
The statements on the website 'Concerned of Rosgill' identified by the claimant are true, and there is a substantial body of evidence to demonstrate this
The statements are a matter of common knowledge in the village of Rosgill, and to large numbers of people in Shap, Bampton and beyond
The claimants have self-publicised their actions well in advance of these comments being posted on the website; the damage to their reputations is entirely self-inflicted.'
Observations on witnesses and the dispute generally
Narrative
Blue bags incident
Photography
Accosting carers
Accosting delivery drivers and other workmen
Reports to police
Leaving open the gate
Claimants parking and blocking the track
The Articles and their meaning
"Isn't this charming?
The offensive individuals at the top of the hill are now attacking medical staff trying to visit their seriously ill patients! Just how low can they stoop in their spiteful campaign to steal a piece of land? Liars, thieves and bullies we know them to be; we know they have been brainwashing at least two vulnerable elderly village characters into further confusion and bewilderment. Now they are threatening the vital carer network. Shame on them!"
Meaning
Dr Wozniak and Ms Kelly are offensive individuals. They are attacking medical staff. They are running a spiteful campaign to steal a piece of land in Rosgill village near to Abbott House. They are liars, thieves and bullies. They have brainwashed at least two vulnerable elderly village people. They are also threatening the vital carer network.
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion….
…
I wonder if this thoughtful person knows that Abbott House regularly threatens people such as district nurses, carers, utility workers, who try to park on this area? And the number of calls they have made to the police is unbelievable…"
Meaning
Dr Wozniak and Ms Kelly regularly threaten people such as district nurses, carers and utility workers, who try to park on the area near to Abbott House.
"For all those of you…
….who saw a car parked on the Green this morning, please know the following:-
….
• the female part of the ownership of Abbott House came home and accosted the
carer.
• we are told her words were: "This is my drive, you need to move".
• the carer said "Are you joking?"
• the female replied "No, you need to move this is my drive."
All such complete lies and intimidation: it is not "their drive" – they merely have a right of access, which was not blocked. Does Florence need this hassle? Can the female at Abbott House really be trying to make it difficult for Florence to visit Margaret, who will undoubtedly really value the company, as will Florence?
Don't these people understand what country life is all about?
Sad…..Why do they persist in their lies and harassment?"
Meaning
Ms Kelly improperly accosted the carer with the words "This is my drive" and "You need to move your vehicle as this is my drive". Ms Kelly was lying about the land near to Abbott House being hers and she was intimidating the carer. Dr Wozniak and Ms Kelly are persisting in telling lies and harassing people.
"Earning a living in the country:
…it is hard enough without interference from townies trying to make it into a retirement park. Not content with harassing the caring profession, the Abbott Housers are now having a go at the Farm Supplies network. As newcomers, they obviously don't realise how the Green has traditionally been a place of rural business: mobile shops, delivery point for straw bales, etc. Happily we understand that the owner of this particular Farm Supplies network advised them of this practice in authentic Anglo Saxon terms."
Meaning
Dr Wozniak and Ms Kelly have been harassing not only the caring profession but also people delivering farm supplies.
"Ha,ha, ha!
Apparently the social pariahs have even taken to following delivery drivers to Shap to tell them off! Do they really think their OWN deliveries will be made with loving care after that??"
Meaning
Dr Wozniak and Ms Kelly are social pariahs in Rosgill. They follow delivery drivers to Shap to tell them off.
"Sorry folks…
To all those of you whose hearts rose, our commiserations! The removal wagon on the Green is not what you thought…Is great, however, to welcome returning people to Rose Farm! The new arrivals have had regular holidays there, so know all about the village "problem". Just as well, as the usual "Rosgill Welcome" was extended to their removal people by Abbott House. Fortunately Pickfords teams are used to dumb hassle from idiots who can't see that household removal lorries need space to park, turn, unload, and they were not distressed. Or moved.
Meaning
Dr Wozniak and Ms Kelly are idiots and have hassled removal teams.
"And here it is…
…not even blocking access:
[Caption of a delivery vehicle]
Just incredibly hard to understand why some people play for their own hand alone. It's bad enough when you can't put yourself out to help anyone, but when you actively try to steal land for your exclusive use, and put everyone else out it's pretty much the Pits."
Meaning
Dr Wozniak and Ms Kelly are trying to steal land for their exclusive use.
"Early morning feel-good factor!
A cold and frosty morning and we had noticed the litter was getting bad on the top road, so Gem and I did our intermittent collection. How nice to be thanked by (a) a regular user of the green and (b) our friendly dustbin lorry team, who specifically gave me an extra bag to replace the one I had left for collection, and whose replacement has hitherto mysteriously seemed to get stolen by some thieving local before I can get to it.
Public service accomplished, and it's only Monday morning!
[Caption of the area referred to with rubbish bag]"
Meaning
Dr Wozniak and Ms Kelly have been stealing litter bags from the land near Abbott House.
The law
Whether defamatory
(a) the common law 'consensus requirement' that the meaning must be one that tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people generally. The judge has to determine whether the behaviour or views that the offending statement attributes to a claimant are contrary to common, shared values of our society;
(b) the common law requirement, known as the threshold of seriousness, that the imputation must be one that would tend to have a substantially adverse effect on the way that people would treat the claimant; and
(c) an additional statutory requirement, from s.1 Defamation Act 2013 :
'(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.'
This means that a claimant must now prove not only that the statement has a defamatory tendency, but also that it did as a matter of fact cause serious reputational harm or was likely to do so : Lachaux
v. Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27 [2020] AC 612 at [12].
For each requirement the burden of proof lies on the Claimants.
"As Lord Sumption explained in [Lachaux at [14]] "…whether a statement has caused "serious harm" falls to be established "by reference to the impact which the statement is shown actually to have had", and that, in turn, "depends on a combination of the inherent tendency of the words and their actual impact on those to whom they were communicated". Further, as appears from [16], in light of wording of section 1(1)…a statement may not be defamatory even if it amounts to "a grave allegation against the claimant" if (for example) it is "published to a small number of people, or two people none of whom believe it, or possibly to people among whom the claimant has no reputation to be harmed." At the same time, the assessment of harm of a defamatory statement is not simply "a numbers game" (see Mardas v New York Times Co [2009] EMLR 8, Eady J at [15]). Indeed: "Reported cases have shown that very serious harm to a reputation can be caused by the publication of a defamatory statement to one person": Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA [2016] EMLR 12, Dingemans J at [47]."
The defence of truth
Article 1 : Conclusion on whether defamatory
Article 1 : Defence of truth
Ms Randall's submissions
Liars
Thieves/campaign to steal land
Bullies
Brainwashing
Attacking medical staff/threatening the care network
Offensive individuals
Spiteful campaign
Article 1 : conclusion on defence of truth
Liars
Thieves/campaign to steal land
Bullies
Brainwashing
Attacking medical staff/threatening the care network
Spiteful campaign/offensive individuals
Article 3
Ms Randall's submissions
Conclusion
Article 4
Ms Randall's submissions
Conclusion
Article 5
Ms Randall's submissions
Conclusion
Article 6
Ms Randall's submission
In support of the statement that the Claimants are social pariahs in Rosgill, Ms Randall points in particular to the evidence of Mr and Mrs Lindwall and Mrs Carruthers as they relate to various social and other events in Rosgill.
Conclusion
Article 7
Ms Randall's submission
Conclusion
Article 8
Ms Randall's submission
Conclusion
Article 9
Ms Randall's submission
Conclusion
Damages
(1) The initial measure of damages is the amount that would restore the claimant to the position (s)he would have enjoyed had (s)he not been defamed;
(2) The existence and scale of any harm to reputation may be established by evidence or inferred. Often, the process is one of inference, but evidence that tends to show that as a matter of fact the person was shunned, avoided, or taunted will be relevant;
(3) The impact of libel on a person's reputation can be affected by (a) their role in society; (b) the extent to which the publisher of the defamatory invitation is authoritative and credible. The person making the allegations may be someone apparently well-placed to know the facts, or they may appear to be an unreliable source; (c) the identities of the publishees. Publication of a libel to family, friends or work colleagues may be more harmful and hurtful than if it is circulated among strangers. On the other hand, those close to a claimant may have knowledge or viewpoints that make them less likely to believe what is alleged; (d) the propensity of defamatory statements to percolate through underground channels and contaminate hidden springs and social networking sites, particularly for claimants in the public eye;
(4) in arriving at a figure it is proper to have to regard to jury awards approved by the Court of Appeal, the scale of damages awarded in personal injury actions and previous awards by judge sitting without a jury;
(5) Any award needs to be no more than is justified by the legitimate aim of protecting reputation, necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of that aim, and proportionate to that need. This limit is nowadays statutory, via the Human Rights Act 1998.
Conclusion on Article 1
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5