QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
____________________
(1) APPLAUSE STORE PRODUCTIONS LIMITED (2) MATTHEW FIRSHT |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
GRANT RAPHAEL |
Defendant |
____________________
Jeremy Pendlebury (instructed by Bar Pro Bono Unit) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 30 June – 3 July
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Richard Parkes QC
INTRODUCTION
THE MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON FACEBOOK
Information | |
Group info | |
Name: | HAS MATHEW FIRSHT LIED TO YOU? ... |
Description: | MATHEW FIRSHT THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF APPLAUSE STORE OWES US A LOT OF MONEY AND HAS CONSTANTLY LIED ABOUT WHEN HE WILL PAY US. |
WE ARE SICK OF HIS PATHETIC EXCUSES... | |
HAS HE LIED TO YOU? DOES HE OWE YOU MONEY? | |
LET US HEAR FROM YOU AND JOIN THE GROUP. BE GREAT TO HEAR FROM YOU. | |
Contact info | |
Website: | WWW.APPLAUSESTORE.COM |
Country: | England." |
DISCOVERY OF THE FALSE PROFILE AND GROUP
THE FACEBOOK ACTIVITY LOG
FRIENDSHIP AND FALLING OUT
THE DEFENDANT'S SITUATION IN JUNE 2007
THE EVENTS OF 19TH JUNE 2007
THE EVENTS OF 20TH JUNE 2007
" 1. [State occupation and qualifications]"
2. On 20th June 2007, I was working on the NBC corporate shoot with Grant Raphael in Leicester Square London. My role that day was [state role].
3. We had arrived by around 7am and we were finished by around 2pm.
4. Grant was Camera Supervisor that day, so he stayed until the equipment (which had been hired) was collected. I left at around ---- approximately; and Grant was still there when I left."
THE INFORMATION ON THE FALSE PROFILE AND GROUP
THE EVENTS OF 21ST AUGUST 2007
SUBMISSIONS ON LIABILITY
CONCLUSIONS ON LIABILITY
QUANTUM
(1) The evidence of Max Kelly, who explained that Facebook does not store data showing how many Facebook users merely viewed the profile or group, but only shows those users who performed some activity in relation to them. I think that Ms Skinner is right to characterise his evidence in that way. He did say that Facebook kept no records which showed how many users accessed either the profile or the group, but he also said that the group was 'accessed' by Richard Jay, Darren Levy and Carole Davies. All 'accessed' the group on 20th June. It is not clear to me what the difference is between 'accessing' a profile or group and merely viewing it, but that there is a difference is clear;
(2) The general popularity of Facebook as a social networking tool, not least in the television industry;
(3) The fact that the false profile and group were placed on the London network, which then had over 850,000 members, to any of whom they would have been visible. In that connection, Ms Skinner points to the fact that one Clifford White, who had offices at Elstree Studios, sent an email to the profile less than 30 minutes after it was created, saying that he had just found Mr Firsht on Facebook and wondered if he would be interested in setting up a Facebook club for 'studio residents'.
"The successful plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to recover, as general compensatory damages, such sum as will compensate him for the wrong he has suffered. That sum must compensate him for the damage to his reputation; vindicate his good name; and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has caused. In assessing the appropriate damages for injury to reputation the most important factor is the gravity of the libel; the more closely it touches the plaintiff's personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of his personality, the more serious it is likely to be. The extent of publication is also very relevant: a libel published to millions has a greater potential to cause damage than a libel published to a handful of people. A successful plaintiff may properly look to an award of damages to vindicate his reputation: but the significance of this is much greater in a case where the defendant asserts the truth of the libel and refuses any retraction or apology than in a case where the defendant acknowledges the falsity of what was published and publicly expresses regret that the libellous publication took place. It is well established that compensatory damages may and should compensate for additional injury caused to the plaintiff's feelings by the defendant's conduct of the action, as when he persists in an unfounded assertion that the publication was true, or refuses to apologise, or cross-examines the plaintiff in a wounding or insulting way."