Tweet in haste, repent at leisure!


Monroe sued Hopkins over two war memorial tweets she said caused “serious harm” to her reputation.

Author: Howard Tilney
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 4 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Last week saw the food blogger Jack Monroe win £24,000 in damages, plus legal costs, in a libel action against controversial motor mouth columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over two tweets.

Monroe sued Hopkins over two war memorial tweets she said caused “serious harm” to her reputation.

In May 2015 Hopkins tweeted asking if Monroe had “scrawled on any memorials recently?”

Hopkins was also ordered to pay an eye watering initial sum of £107,000.00 towards Monroe’s legal costs. The final costs figure has yet to be assessed, but it is likely to increase.

Mr. Justice Warby, sitting in the High Court, ruled that the tweet “meant that Ms. Monroe condoned and approved of scrawling on war memorials, vandalising monuments commemorating those who fought for her freedom” and found that it had caused “real and substantial distress” and that Monroe was entitled to “fair and reasonable compensation”.

The Judge added: “These are meanings with a defamatory tendency, which were published to thousands.”

Arguments on behalf of Hopkins that this was a “trivial dispute…resolved on Twitter in a period of several hours” and that “no lasting harm, and certainly no serious harm” had been caused to Monroe’s reputation were dismissed.

The Judge said “whilst the Claimant may not have proved that her reputation suffered gravely, I am satisfied that she has established that the publications complained of caused serious harm to her reputation.” and “…real and substantial distress”.

The Judgment now sets a ‘tariff’ at £24,000 for Twitter libel cases, which may encourage more claims, although the costs associated with such claims will continue to prove prohibitive to most.

In summary, if defamatory comments cause serious harm, legal action is likely to follow.

Howard Tilney

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.