“15. I am satisfied that a substantial number of persons would reasonably have understood the statements complained of to bear one or other of these meanings. Indeed, Mr Sambhi does not suggest otherwise. When I asked him what he meant in these videos, he said he meant to say exactly what the Claimants suggest … He goes on to say, however, that he believes the statements, understood in those ways, to be true. That then is the real issue in this case: are these statements false?”
“16. Mr Sambhi has not filed a witness statement. He has not put before the Court any evidence to support his statements or his assertion that they are true. He has not done the “very minimum” which Eady J suggested is required. That is a poor start. 17. When I asked him what evidence he relied on in asserting that these statements are true, this is the answer he gave (I summarise). He said that it all came down to the lies that Mr Jones and the Company had told. Those lies, he said, related to what the Company and Mr Jones had said about the AKS stabilisers’ effectiveness in preventing “snaking”
“43. It is clear from Mr Jones’s witness statement that he is suffering substantial damage and distress as a result of the processing of his personal data by Mr Sambhi, in the various uses to which Mr Sambhi has put the Recording, the Trade Show Footage, and other images of Mr Jones. The use of his personal data extends far beyond the sort of criticism which a senior employee of a large commercial organisation might have to put up with in the ordinary course. Mr Jones is being vilified and menaced by the way in which his personal data has been used and manipulated in the videos. This is an unwarranted attack on him personally. 44. I am therefore persuaded that this is an appropriate case in which to order the Defendant to take steps to comply with the notice. Mr Rushbrooke invites me to do so by simply requiring the Defendant to cease processing any personal data in respect of which Mr Jones is the subject. He showed me Law Society v Kordowski[2011] EWHC 3185 (QB) where Tugendhat J granted a perpetual injunction following a final hearing, on such terms. I agree that the order should provide that Mr Sambhi must not process, further process or cause or permit to be processed any audio recording, video recording, still photograph or other information, including by disclosing the same to the public, amounting to Mr Jones’s personal data for the purposes of the DPA. 45. It is perhaps a footnote to this part of the Claimants’ application that Mr Sambhi is not, in any event, registered with the Information Commissioner. He should not be processing anyone’s data at all. See Sunderland Housing Company at [25].”
“Mr Sambhi’s justification for his extravagant claims seems to rest entirely on the proposition that AL-KO has guaranteed that once a caravan is used with one if its stabilisers there will never be any snaking or instability. But the Company has made no such claims and it is absurd to suggest that the average caravan owner would understand the claims made by the Company as amounting to some sort of absolute guarantee that snaking well never occur with an AKS stabiliser, far less that no accident will ever occur. It is selfevident that the sort of external factors I have set out above could all cause snaking to occur, and that whilst no stabiliser product could ever prevent or completely eliminate all snaking or similar instability, the AKS stabiliser would be seen as a product which helps to suppress snaking when it does occur and to assist in restoring stability. Ultimately, however, there will always be occasions when, for reasons of, for example, improper loading, or dangerous driving, or extreme weather conditions, even a stabiliser cannot prevent a caravan accident.”
“(1) In an action for … malicious falsehood, it shall not be necessary to prove special damage – (a) if the words upon which the action is founded are calculated to cause pecuniary damage to the claimant …” (a) if the words upon which the action is founded are calculated to cause pecuniary damage to the claimant …” 33. In her judgment at paragraph 11, Whipple J stated as follows: “… To establish “calculated damage”, a party must show that the statement of which complaint is made is calculated, i.e., more likely than not, to cause him pecuniary damage: see Tesla Motors Ltd v BBC[2013] EWCA Civ 152 at [27]. In the ordinary course of things, derogatory statements about a commercial product are likely to put off some potential customers, with a consequent loss of revenue from sales and increases in costs, see Tesla [37]. Mr Sambhi does not suggest that the effect of his statements would not be to put off some potential customers; indeed, his avowed specific purpose in publishing these statements is to do precisely that. It is selfevidently likely that the Company has suffered or will suffer pecuniary loss by way of lost sales as a result of the publication of the videos. These elements are therefore established.”