On damages for defamation, and downsides of advancing a deliberately false case.

CW is a computer scientist and businessman who is active in the cryptocurrency sphere. He claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious inventor of Bitcoin.¹

PM is a podcaster and blogger specialising in cryptocurrency-related content. He does not believe that CW is Satoshi Nakamoto, and posted several tweets expressing this view. He also called CW a liar, a fraud, and a moron.

CW sued PM for defamation. He claimed that he had suffered serious harm: that after PM's tweets, 10 academic conferences withdrew their invitations for him to attend and present academic papers which they had already previously accepted, and this adversely affected his ability to pursue academic opportunities.

---

2 weeks before trial, PM adduced evidence that:

(a) a paper that CW had submitted to an academic conference was rejected even before the offending tweets were posted; and

(b) in respect of another academic conference, CW had not even submitted a paper and was never invited to speak.

CW then sought to amend his claim and withdraw part of his evidence. He also admitted that in respect of other conferences, he had papers rejected, or had not even submitted a paper in the first place.

---

Notwithstanding the shift in CW's position, the Court eventually held that PM had defamed him, and had caused serious harm to CW's position.

One might therefore have expected CW to be awarded significant monetary damages - right?

Not quite.

The Court awarded CW nominal damages of £1.

£1!

And, mind you, the legal costs for taking the matter to trial may have been in the millions.²

The Court held that since CW had advanced a "deliberately false case on serious harm" until just days before trial, it would be unconscionable for CW to receive any more than nominal damages.

That was not all. The Court also held that:

(a) parts of CW's evidence was "straightforwardly false in almost every material respect"; and

(b) CW had given "deliberately false evidence".

I cannot imagine that the Court's findings would have improved CW's reputation.³

---

3 takeaways:

(a) in litigation, winning matters. But how you seek victory is just as important, and can impact the reliefs granted;

(b) before commencing a claim for defamation to defend your reputation, consider also how your reputation may be impacted if you lose the case, and whether this is an outcome you can live with. Regular readers will recognise this as a theme I often revisit; and

(c) from time to time, we see defamation claims commenced for the underlying purpose of proving or disproving whether certain events had indeed occurred. Such claims are far from straightforward and may not lead to the claimant's intended outcome. Before commencing such a claim, ensure that you have received measured and considered advice.