Damages Award Set Aside Over Service Failures
An award of £300,000 in damages for a couple who sued over abusive comments on the controversial gossip website Tattle Life has been set aside by a High Court judge.
Justice Humphreys identified failures to properly serve a writ in the case brought by entrepreneurs Neil and Donna Sands against the site's founder, Sebastian Bond.
Additionally, an order freezing £1.8 million in Bond's worldwide assets has been lifted.
"I find that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that Mr Bond knew of these proceedings," the judge held.
In December 2023, the couple from County Antrim obtained awards of £150,000 in damages each, plus legal costs, in an action concerning what they regarded as a form of "hate speech."
The proceedings focused on postings published on Tattle Life, a platform hosting message boards and comments about influencers, celebrities, and other members of the public.
The couple embarked on a two-year legal battle to identify the operator of the online forum.
Neil Sands, a 44-year-old technology entrepreneur, and his wife Donna, 35, who runs a fashion business, claimed they had been subjected to a campaign of harassment, invasion of privacy, defamation, and breach of data rights.
A previous judge involved in the case stated that the site had been established to deliberately inflict harm by allowing anonymous attacks on reputations and "peddling untruths for profit."
In June last year, Bond was publicly named as a founder of Tattle Life after reporting restrictions were lifted.
Apology Offered
Assets linked to Bond and two companies based in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong were also frozen to ensure the damages award and associated costs could be met.
Bond challenged the judgment against him, seeking to have it set aside due to alleged failures to make full disclosures in court applications and flaws in the service of the writ.
Lawyers representing Bond and the Hong Kong company Kumquat Tree Ltd, both defendants in the original action, claimed an abuse of process and sought to set aside the court's offer for substituted service (SSO).
Earlier this year, a solicitor for the couple acknowledged that previous evidence had been incomplete and that information known about Bond should have been disclosed earlier.
An apology was offered for what was described as honest mistakes not intended to mislead or create any tactical advantage in the legal battle.
Defective Service Identified
In ruling on the application, Justice Humphreys found no improper motive and declined to strike out the action as an abuse of process.
However, he concluded that the proceedings were not properly served in compliance with the SSO.
"No explanation has been provided by the plaintiffs' solicitors for the defective service of the application to enter judgment," he said.
The judge noted that these irregularities were not mere technicalities.
"They had very serious consequences for the defendants in terms of the further steps the plaintiffs were able to take in obtaining judgement, injunctive relief and a worldwide freezing order (WFO)."
Justice Humphreys issued a declaration that the writ had not been served on either Bond or Kumquat Tree Ltd.
"The judgment against the defendants is set aside," he confirmed.
"It also follows in these circumstances that the WFO must be set aside insofar as it relates to the defendants."
