IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
"67. All of this, however, is about injury to feelings, and the issue I have to address at this stage is whether serious harm to reputation has been proved. As Dingemans J noted in Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA [2016] EWHC 66 (QB), [2016] EMLR 12 [46], unless serious harm to reputation can be established an injury to feelings alone, however grave, will not be sufficient."
See also para 75. Feelings seem to be part of it but not the whole thing in a libel case.
"82. My main conclusions are these. The First Tweet meant that Ms Monroe condoned and approved of scrawling on war memorials, vandalising monuments commemorating those who fought for her freedom. The Second Tweet meant that Ms Monroe condoned and approved of the fact that in the course of an anti-government protest there had been vandalisation by obscene graffiti of the women’s war memorial in Whitehall, a monument to those who fought for her freedom. These are meanings with a defamatory tendency, which were published to thousands. Their publication not only caused Ms Monroe real and substantial distress, but also harm to her reputation which was serious, albeit not “very serious” or “grave”. Ms Monroe is entitled to fair and reasonable compensation, which I assess at £24,000. There is no need for any injunction."
I am obviously very late to the party and have only just noticed this.
According to the video, you don't have to proveyou were harmed to qualify for compo, just feelharmed? Is this correct?
Forums 
