How to sue in respect of abusive comments on the Internet

25 March 2015 by

Internet-TrollThe Bussey Law Firm PC & Anor v Page [2015] EWHC 563 (QB) – read judgment

The facts of this case are simple. A defamatory comment was posted on the claimant’s Google maps directional page, implying that he was a “loser” as a lawyer and that his firm lost “80%” of cases brought to them. The defendant claimed that someone must have hacked in to his own Google account to put up the post.

There were jurisdictional complications in that the firm is situated in Colarado but these need not concern us here as Sir David Eady, sitting as a High Court judge, allowed the trial to go ahead in England. The real question was  why any third party would have gone to the trouble of hacking into the defendant’s Google account in order to post the offending review; if the objective were merely to hide the hacker’s identity from the claimants, there would be the simpler option of setting up an anonymous Google account. This would in itself render the would-be publisher untraceable, and especially if it were done from a public computer. Equally, if such a hacker nevertheless wished to use someone else’s account, as Sir David said,

it is not easy to see why he would choose that of the Defendant. He is based in England and it would make more sense, surely, to choose someone in or near Colorado Springs, where the Claimants practise. This would present a rather more credible scenario, if the account were traced, since their clients or potential clients are more likely to be found within easy reach.

The defendant put forward one scenario which the judge found somewhat difficult to swallow: that he must himself have been the hacker’s real target. The theory is that he or she might have been seeking retribution for some decision or action taken by the Defendant in his capacity as moderator of “sub-reddits” on the website.

In other words, this could provide an explanation why the third party wanted Mr Page to take the blame for the attack on the Claimants. This plan would still, of course, involve the third party successfully hacking into Mr Page’s account in the first place and then making the (very big) assumption that the target (i.e. the Claimants) would actually go to the trouble and expense of identifying Mr Page and thereafter of pursuing him in a foreign jurisdiction. When one comes to assess the competing possibilities, it is fair to say that this somewhat obscure explanation defies probability.

One possibility is that the defendant obtained payment for posting third party reviews via another website, the site. Why he should himself choose to attack the claimants was also unclear, but the most likely explanation appeared to the judge as “a purely financial one”.

An action in defamation however is not one where it is required of the court to establish motive, so once he had decided liability Sir David was able to proceed to determine damages.  The purpose of compensatory general damages is threefold. The court must compensate

  1. for hurt feelings and distress, and
  2. for injury to reputation, as well as bearing in mind
  3. the need to award a sum which will serve as an outward and visible sign of vindication.

There was no doubt that the allegation caused Mr Bussey “considerable anxiety and distress, as it reflected upon his personal integrity and his professional competence throughout the period of ready access.”

The judge assessed the damages in this case at £45,000 for Mr Bussey personally, and for the first claimant, his firm, he awarded the sum of £25,000, although the total claim was capped at £50,000.


The widespread problem of “trolling” on the internet cannot be solved by libel law alone, and no finding of individual ill-will was made in respect of this particular defendant. But it is an interesting case of a defamed individual being able to claim redress even though the precise identity of his defamer cannot be established beyond doubt.


Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts



  1. Roger Nield says:

    Reblogged this on Simple Things.

  2. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  3. I haven’t read this judgement. I intend to, but just from this summary I am very troubled. I don’t know whether it is more or less troubling that this was apparently a litigant in person. I would have expected a bit more scepticism in the tone of this piece. I have no trouble swallowing with Eady J finds so difficult. Hackers gonna hack. They do it for the “lulz”. It is more fun to pretend to be a real person than to use an anonymous account that is untraceable. You get to screw over two people at once. It is not very difficult if you know what you’re doing. Eady should perhaps acquaint himself with the force that is collectively known as GamerGate to get a sense of what’s possible. The judge is a fool.

    Surely it’s worthwhile looking into what relationship if any the defendant has to the claimant and why he might do something like this. If there’s no link, then it seems on balance more likely to be a malicious act by a third party. I have no trouble buying the sub-reddit argument either. Again, see GamerGate. We now have a defendant who could not afford to instruct a lawyer, ordered to pay damages that most people would be ill able to afford, simply because he is unable to prove on balance of probability that he did not push the button. This is terrible. If he was attacked over speech acts he has made, then he will be very reluctant to put himself in that situation again, and so should we. There are clear free speech chilling implications here. I know good lawyers who would probably help out, so I’m not terribly worried for myself. But this is bad for your average person. I’ll read the judgement to get the whole picture, but for now let me just express my acute discomfort.

    1. Geoffrey says:

      Matt, you say, “. . . simply because he is unable to prove on balance of probability that he did not push the button.” But it’s almost impossible to prove a negative. The rule of logic is that who asserts must prove – judges should know that!

  4. truthaholics says:

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics.

  5. Peter B says:

    The Judgment should be read in the light of he is not a real High court Judge, he is a temporary made up one , where the system uses people as guinea pigs during the recess to see if he is worth promoting to a real one. To be fair another tier of appeal should be introduced when ever a Judge is “siting as “!

    Secondly the defendant was a litigant in person and not represented. The defendant did not challenge jurisdiction and appeared to be just lead like a lamb to slaughter.
    Thirdly what would have happened if he plead the comments were true ? He could have posted on the internet asking for former clients to contact him to see what they really thought of the firm?

  6. JM says:

    so, Mr Page forced to pay 50K even though no evidence presented that he was even guilty?

  7. Geoffrey says:

    “But it is an interesting case of a defamed individual being able to claim redress even though the precise identity of his defamer cannot be established beyond doubt.”

    She said, “No! someone’s got to be summonsed” So that were decided upon. (Albert and the Lion – Stanley Holloway).

    If Mr Page did anything, could it have been proved or disproved? I believe there’s an Asian criminal case where spoofing of IP addresses may be an issue,

    1. Geoffrey says:

      An afterthought – perhaps Mr Page should have paid for a lawyer?

      1. JM says:

        how can one when you are destitute and have no money? + how do you find a trustworthy lawyer anyway? i.e. one that does what his employer tells them to do….

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: