February 24, 2020

The claimants, Triad Group plc and two of its directors, Nicholas Burrows and Alistair Fulton, applied inter alia for an assessment of damages in respect of their claims in libel and for harassment following judgment in default of Defence granted by Mr Justice Knowles in February 2019.

Triad is an IT company and the defendant, Mira Makar, was a director and the CEO of Triad until 2005 when she left the company in acrimonious circumstances. Following her departure, Ms Makar retained a large and valuable shareholding in Triad.

On her departure, legal proceedings in the Employment Tribunal were issued. In November 2006, the parties settled the dispute and Ms Makar agreed not to publish disparaging or derogatory statements concerning the company or any of its officers or employees. Since around 2009, and as found by Knowles J, Ms Makar has been engaged in a campaign against the claimants relating to a number of perceived grievances about their conduct.

Ms Makar’s campaign, which consisted of communications made directly to the claimants and third parties, as well as Tweets and online postings, continued at least until August 2019 despite the injunctive relief granted by Knowles J.

The substance of Ms Makar’s communications centred on her belief that the claimants had interfered in her affairs and her shareholding to her financial disadvantage. She also complained about her bankruptcy. She made many accusations, including that Messrs Burrows and Fulton and others had been guilty of dishonesty and criminal offences in respect of her, for example, by dishonestly altering records in relation to her shares. She accused the claimants of behaving in a way that caused physical injury and harm to her mother, which Knowles J found were especially offensive and upsetting for the claimants.

Knowles J found that Ms Makar’s conduct was a breach of the 2006 settlement agreement and that it amounted to harassment of, and libel against, Messrs Burrow and Fulton. He granted an injunction requiring Ms Makar to comply with her obligations under the 2006 agreement, restraining her from pursuing any course of conduct that amounted to harassment, and restraining her from publishing a series of specified defamatory allegations.

Mr Justice Saini considered it material to the distress caused to the claimants that during the relevant time period the claimants repeatedly complained to Ms Makar about her conduct and requested her, in measured terms, to desist. They issued proceedings only when it became apparent that was only way to protect their rights.

Even after service of the Claim Form and pleadings Ms Makar continued her campaign. Some of her postings during this period demonstrated that she was fully aware of the proceedings against her.

Saini J also said it was “highly unfortunate” that Ms Makar continued her offensive activities following Knowles J’s judgment. This was material to the assessment process in two ways: (i) the continuing conduct demonstrated the need for a substantial award to provide outward and visible sign of vindication of the falsity of the serious allegations made; and (ii) Ms Makar’s conduct between the date of judgment and the date of the assessment in repeating the libels and continuing the harassing conduct, in defiance of the injunction should be taken into account as aggravation of the distress caused to the claimants.

Overall, Saini J found that Ms Makar had conducted an aggressive campaign of harassment over a period of substantially over two years, which continued after the proceedings were issued and after the judgment on liability. Ms Makar knew that it was causing alarm and distress because she had been told as much. The harassment took multiple forms, involving direct telephone and email contact, publication of distressing allegations to associates of the claimants and publication to the world at large.

Further, the defamatory allegations were of the most serious nature, involving serious criminal offences (effectively, fraud) and conduct alleged to have caused serious physical harm. The allegations struck at the core of the claimants’ characters and reputations. Although the medium was not the national press, it was on a public forum accessible to the whole world, and was targeted at those in whose eyes the claimants’ reputations mattered the most.

There was also compelling evidence from Messrs Burrows and Fulton of the serious alarm, distress and embarrassment suffered by them as a result of the harassment and libels.

In the circumstances, a substantial award was merited. The case was perhaps not as serious as Hourani v Thomson [2017] EWHC 432 (QB) (in which there was an award of £50,000 in damages for libel and £30,000 for harassment) or Appleyard v Wilby [2014] EWHC 2770 (in which there was an award of £60,000), although there was the added feature of repetitive conduct over at least two years. However, the case was of a more serious nature than Suttle v Walker [2019] EWHC 396 (QB), in which there was an award of £40,000.

Although those cases should not be treated as precedents because each case depends on particular facts, Saini J said there was “much to be said” for an element of consistency in financial awards in combined libel/harassment cases. Therefore, the “range” should be between £40,000 and £80,000.

Saini J also considered the free speech interests involved, but to be balanced against what in this case was the view that on the harassment aspects this was a “top band” case. It would not be an exaggeration to describe Ms Makar as having made the personal and professional lives of the claimants intolerable and their right to private life protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was very much in issue.

In all the circumstances, Saini J awarded Mr Fulton £65,000.00 and Mr Burrows £60,000.00 in damages as combined awards for both the libel and harassment causes of action. (Triad Group plc v Mira Makar [2020] EWHC 306 (QB) (14 February 2020) — to read the judgment in full, click here.