The High Court's decision to dismiss this defamation claim serves as a critical example of the judiciary's reluctance to allow courts to be used for the collateral litigation of acrimonious family disputes that lack a foundation in serious, demonstrable legal harm.
Facts:
This defamation claim arose from a single Facebook post made by the defendant, Mrs. Yvonne Tattersall (the widow), in early September 2021, against the claimant, Mrs. Lynette Tattersall, the deceased's mother. The context was an ongoing, bitter family dispute following the sudden death of Mr. Michael Tattersall in 2019 without a will, resulting in proceedings initiated by Lynette against Yvonne.
The post complained that Yvonne had been unable to socialise because friends had sided with Lynette, whom the defendant described as a woman who had "tried to make me homeless and continually told lies about me". The post was deleted around the time the County Court proceedings concluded in February 2023.
Following a trial of preliminary issues, the Court determined the single natural and ordinary meaning of the post was that the claimant had been trying to deprive the defendant of her home and had been telling lies about her, both of which were deemed to have a defamatory tendency. The defendant applied to strike out or dismiss the claim, arguing that the claimant could not prove the publication had caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to her reputation as required by Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, or that the claim was an abuse of process.
Decision:
The High Court dismissed the claim due to the particulars of the claim failing to set out a coherent, legally viable case on the statutory requirement of serious reputational harm. The claimant incorrectly pleaded her own subjective emotional reaction (e.g., "enormous impact," "significant distress and anxiety") as proof of serious harm. The Court stressed that the test is objective, requiring proof of harm to reputation in the minds of third-party readers. The pleadings relied on exaggerated meanings (e.g., being rendered "homeless" or "untrustworthy") that were not supported by the determined meaning of the post.
Implications:
While this case is technically a defamation claim, it carries several significant implications from family disputes, particularly regarding high-conflict, post-death, or in-laws litigation. The primary implication is a strong judicial discouragement of using social media to vent or litigate family disputes. Using platforms such as Facebook, especially during live litigation, can escalate personal conflict. While the defendant won the defamation action, the act of posting initiated new High Court litigation, multiplying stress, time, and legal fees unnecessarily.
The case illustrates that the courts are unwilling to be used as a forum for settling personal family grievances when the actual legal harm is negligible. The judgement reinforces the notion that courts deal with legal damage (reputation), rather than emotional injury or the desire for vindication in a personal family feud.
Finally, the judgement confirms that even highly aggressive personal statements made in the context of family disputes often fail to rise to the level of serious legal harm. The fact that the defamatory statement was made within a known, partisan family conflict actually weakened the claimant's case.
