Expert Witness Journal Issue 65 February 2026 - Flipbook - Page 24
Defamation in the digital age:
What counts as serious harm?
by Betul Milliner, Legal Director at DAC Beachcroft
to the question of harm to her reputation. The
court also held that there was no real prospect of
the claimant establishing an inference of serious
harm based on the Facebook post, due to its limited
publication, the modest gravity of the allegations
and the lack of evidence from those who had read
the post that it had caused her reputational harm.
Overview
Two recent cases, Tattersall v Tattersall [2025] EWHC
2558 (KB) and Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321,
show how courts are drawing the line when it comes
to proving serious harm in defamation claims.
Legal framework
Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 provides that
a statement is not defamatory unless its publication
has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the
reputation of the claimant.
The court emphasised that the serious harm test
was intended to prevent trivial claims and struck out
the claim, 昀椀nding that it disclosed no reasonable
grounds and had no real prospect of success.
Tattersall v Tattersall
Blake v Fox
Facts
Facts
The High Court struck out a libel claim arising
from a single Facebook post shared during a family
dispute involving a mother in law (claimant) and
daughter in law (defendant). The post, seen by about
昀椀fty people, accused the claimant of trying to make
the defendant homeless and lying about her. Whilst
the words were held to be defamatory, the claim
was struck out because the claimant could not show
that the publication caused, or was likely to cause,
serious harm to her reputation.
The Court of Appeal revisited a high-pro昀椀le X
(formerly Twitter) spat in which Mr Fox accused
the claimants of being “paedophiles” after they had
labelled him “[a] racist”. At 昀椀rst instance, Mr Fox’s
counterclaim failed for lack of serious harm, the
claimants succeeded and were awarded £90,000
each in damages.
The Court of Appeal held that there was compelling
support for an inference that the mass publication
of each of the claimants’ “racist” tweets seriously
harmed Mr Fox’s reputation and that this was the
only conclusion reasonably available to the judge.
Mr Fox’s counterclaim was remitted for retrial on his
defences of honest opinion and truth.
Court’s reasoning
The court emphasised that the serious harm test
requires objective evidence of reputational damage.
The claimant’s personal distress was not relevant
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
22
FEBRUARY 2026
