Tweet in haste, repent at leisure!

legal updates

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

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.

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Fake reviews differ from defamatory reviews

Tripadvisor’s latest transparency report identified and removed 1.3m fake reviews last year.

Disclaimers – are these really worth the paper they are written on?

Of course, if someone ignores all valid warnings and suffers injury, then they may only have themselves to blame.

The court finds car dealer partly liable for damage caused by the removal of a sticker!

Due to COVID-19, the court held an Early Neutral Evaluation, a 30-minute telephone assessment of each party’s position.

Defamation – How suing for libel and slander is easier said than done!

All well and good for the rich and famous or organisations with cavernously deep pockets but for mere mortals, that is rarely the answer.

Awarded £25,000 in general damages and Trustpilot ordered to remove review

Perhaps the wide reporting of this case will give malicious reviewers pause for thought.

Dealing with negative online reviews

You should deal with the situation as it is and, offer a solution if there is one.

Misrepresentation? Not without an untrue statement

On the evidence, there was no question that our member had complied with his obligations under the Consumer Rights Act, fully.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.