Jackson v Collins: £100,000 damages awarded for Twitter defamation

In Peter Jackson v Danielle Collins [2025] NI Master 16, Master Harvey assessed damages at £100,000 following a protracted defamation claim arising from Twitter posts published in April 2018. The defendant failed to enter an appearance after proceedings were issued in March 2019, resulting in default judgement for the plaintiff.

The libellous statements appeared on the defendant's Twitter account @DanielleTVGold between 13 and 16 April 2018, shortly after the conclusion of a criminal trial involving the plaintiff's son. Over 19 posts, the defendant accused the plaintiff of witness tampering and attempting to bribe both a witness and the complainant in the rape trial. The posts included allegations that the plaintiff's attempts to "pay off" the victim were "widely known" and claims that a witness had received a "large sum of money" in exchange for testimony.

Procedural history

The case exemplified defendant conduct as an aggravating factor. Despite service of a detailed letter of claim in June 2018, the defendant never responded. After obtaining leave to serve outside the jurisdiction, the writ was properly served on the defendant in Dublin in March 2019. Default judgement followed in February 2020.

The defendant briefly engaged solicitors in January 2021 to apply to set aside the default judgement, claiming irregularities with service and denying publication of the offending messages. However, she became unresponsive to her legal representatives from May 2023 onwards, leading them to apply to come off record in December 2024. The defendant failed to attend multiple court reviews throughout 2024 and 2025, and the set aside application was ultimately struck out.

Assessment framework

Master Harvey applied the established principles from Thomas Elliot v Philip Flanagan [2016] NIQB 8 and Arlene Foster v Christian Jessen [2021] NIQB 56, emphasising the three functions of defamation damages: consolation for distress, repair of reputation, and vindication.

The court considered the objective gravity of the libel—false accusations of perverting the course of justice, a serious criminal offence carrying substantial custodial sentences. Expert evidence from Professor Curran of Ulster University estimated direct tweet visibility at between 385 and 770 follower views, with potential total reach of 1,000 to 3,500 views. The defendant's 7,000 followers and six-week publication period meant the libel was reasonably significant, though not "highly prominent" compared to cases involving more prominent defendants.

Subjective impact and aggravation

Evidence from the plaintiff and his wife demonstrated profound personal impact. The plaintiff experienced sleep disturbance, social isolation, obsessive internet monitoring, and deteriorating health, including diabetes and a recent stroke. The false accusations attacked fundamental aspects of his character and self-worth.

Significantly, the complete absence of mitigation distinguished this case. The defendant never apologised, retracted the statements, or acknowledged their falsity. Her subsequent conduct—departing for America, evading engagement, and "brazening it out"—constituted serious aggravation. The seven-year delay in obtaining vindication, attributable entirely to the defendant's obstruction, compounded the harm.

Master Harvey cross-referenced the award against personal injury compensation in the Green Book (2024), noting that moderately severe psychiatric damage ranges from £60,000 to £150,000, confirming the £100,000 award as both reasonable and proportionate whilst serving all three functions of defamation compensation.