A Co Antrim couple who sued a controversial gossip website over abusive comments have pledged to continue their “fight for justice” for online abuse victims after losing a £300,000 (€347,000) award in a legal ruling.
Entrepreneurs Neil and Donna Sands had their libel damages against Tattle Life set aside by a High Court judge in Belfast on Tuesday.
Judge Michael Humphreys said that there was a failure to establish that the site’s founder, Sebastian Bond, knew of the court proceedings.
The couple’s legal team had failed to properly serve a writ in the case they took against Bond, he ruled.
In a statement to The Irish Times, the couple described the judgment as “lengthy and technical”.
They are taking time to review it before “considering our next steps,” they said on Wednesday.
An order freezing £1.8 million in Bond’s worldwide assets was also lifted following the judgment.
In December 2023, the couple received awards of £150,000 in damages, plus legal costs, in an action over what they regarded as a form of “hate speech”.
On Wednesday, they insisted that they “never took on this work for financial gain”.
Tattle Life hosts message boards and comments about influencers, celebrities and other members of the public
“It has always been about accountability for the victims of online abuse and unmasking those responsible who try to deliberately remain hidden in the shadows,” the statement added.
“The fight for justice for victims goes on and we are grateful for the continued support of a huge community of people online.”
Proceedings centred on postings published on Tattle Life, which hosts message boards and comments about influencers, celebrities and other members of the public.
The couple launched a two-year legal battle to uncover 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 subject to a campaign of harassment, invasion of privacy, defamation and breach of data rights.
Another judge who previously dealt with their case said the site had been set up to deliberately inflict hurt and harm by allowing the anonymous trashing of reputations and “peddling untruths for profit”.
Bond was publicly named as a founder of Tattle Life after reporting restrictions were lifted last June.
Assets linked to him and two companies based in the UK and Hong Kong were also frozen to ensure the damages award and associated costs could be met.
Bond mounted a legal bid to have the judgment against him set aside based on alleged failures to make full disclosures in court applications and flaws in how the writ was served.
Lawyers representing the website founder and 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 accepted previous evidence had been incomplete and that information known about Bond should have been disclosed earlier.
An apology [by the couple’s legal team] was offered for what was described as honest mistakes not intended to mislead or create any tactical advantage in the legal battle.
Ruling on the application, Judge Michael Humphreys identified no improper motive and declined to strike out the action as an abuse of process.
However, he concluded 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.
It is also apparent 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 judgment, injunctive relief and a worldwide freezing order (WFO).”
The judge 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.”