Monroe v Hopkins
Tweets falsely suggesting that a food writer had approved of the vandalism of a war memorial were defamatory and caused serious harm to her reputation.
Facts
Katie Hopkins, a newspaper columnist, posted tweets addressed to Jack Monroe, a food writer and campaigner, asking whether Jack Monroe had scrawled on any war memorials recently, and suggesting approval of the vandalism of a war memorial during an anti austerity protest. Katie Hopkins had confused Jack Monroe with another writer, who had made comments about the vandalism. Jack Monroe sued for libel.
Legal principle
Warby J held that the tweets were defamatory and had caused serious harm to Jack Monroe's reputation, under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, and awarded £24,000 in damages. The tweets meant that Jack Monroe had condoned and approved of the vandalism of a war memorial, which would lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking people. The judge considered how ordinary readers of Twitter would understand the tweets, and said that the meaning of a tweet must be judged in the context of the medium, which is impressionistic and fleeting. The serious harm was shown by the size of the audience and the gravity of the allegation.
Related cases on defamation and privacy
- Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008
- Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, [2022] AC 1158
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11, [2012] 2 AC 273
- Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
