Ogunkami v Chia [2026] EWCA Civ 588
Click here to read the LexisNexis Case Analysis: Court of Appeal confirms requirements for pleading damages in reputational harm caused by publication abroad (Ogunkami v Chia) | News | LexisNexis
What was the background?
In April 2024, Mr Ogunkami issued libel proceedings in the High Court against Ms Chia and Meta Platforms Inc in respect of social media posts published by Ms Chia on Instagram and other platforms. A claim against Ms Chia for harassment was subsequently added.
The claim alleged that, following a brief consensual sexual encounter in London in 2016, Ms Chia embarked on a prolonged campaign of harassment that included social media posts accusing Mr Ogunkami of rape, drugging, corruption and other criminal conduct.
Mr Ogunkami lived and worked principally outside England and Wales, including in Dubai, while Ms Chia resided in England.
Ms Chia neither acknowledged service nor filed a defence. Default judgment was entered against her on 13 February 2025, and a hearing was listed to determine the relief to be granted. During that hearing, the claim against Meta was discontinued.
The High Court awarded a single sum for damages of £25,000 for libel and harassment, together with injunctive relief. Mr Ogunkami appealed, contending that the judge had materially erred by reducing damages on the basis that Mr Ogunkami’s reputation was outside England and Wales, and that the judge had failed to compensate him for ‘global’ reputational harm caused by online publication abroad.
The Court of Appeal considered three key issues:
• the court’s jurisdiction over claims in respect of foreign publication;
• requirements for pleading and proof of such claims; and
• the approach to damages following default judgment.
What did the court decide?
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Lord Justice Warby, with whom Lord Justice Arnold and Lord Justice Peter Jackson agreed, held that Mr Ogunkami had failed to plead and prove his claim for damages for harm caused by publication abroad.
On the court’s jurisdiction over claims in respect of foreign publication, it was held that the arguments put forward by Mr Ogunkami’s counsel were misdirected.
Firstly, the authorities cited related to the Brussels Convention 1968 and Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), which did not apply to this claim as it was brought after the expiry of the transition period following Brexit.
Secondly, and more importantly, the issue to be addressed was not whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim for libel against Ms Chia for harm outside of England and Wales—this was not in issue because Ms Chia did not challenge jurisdiction, or engage in the proceedings at all, and the judge had not determined that the court lacked jurisdiction.
Instead, the judge’s conclusion was, in substance, that Mr Ogunkami had failed to establish a right to recover any (or any substantial) damages relating to reputational harm suffered abroad.
On the issue of pleading and proof, the Court of Appeal found that where foreign publication is not pleaded, the claim must be taken to be limited to publication in England and Wales and that where words complained of have been published elsewhere, a claimant should plead publication in each jurisdiction as a separate cause of action and include an averment in the particulars of claim such that publication is actionable under the laws of that country.
In essence, each foreign publication must be actionable both under English law and under the law of the place of publication—known as the double actionability rule.
Counsel for Mr Ogunkami invited the court to depart from these principles (and the position set out in Gatley on Libel and Slander 13th Edition), stating that “publications now take place predominantly on the internet, with a global audience accessible in seconds” and that it would be impracticable and disproportionate to require a claimant to plead that he seeks damages for harm to his reputation in over 190 countries and that the law in those jurisdictions is sufficiently similar.
The Court of Appeal declined to disprove or depart from the firmly established principles and commented that the instant global reach that modern technology allows is hardly a recent phenomenon, and claimants are frequently able to formulate a case, relying on evidence regarding the nature of their reputation, publication and the scale of readership or likely target audience.
Ultimately, it was held that Mr Ogunkami had failed to plead a factual case on foreign publication and, further or alternatively, had failed to assert that the publications complained of were actionable by the laws of the places of publication.
On the assessment of damages following judgment in default, the appeal was dismissed on the further basis that the judgment obtained by Mr Ogunkami gave him everything he was entitled to as a matter of civil procedure, as he had failed to plead or prove his entitlement to more.
In short, remedies were determined on the unchallenged pleaded case and the judge found (generously in the Court of Appeal’s view) that the pleadings on reputational harm were “quite limited”.
Mr Ogunkami had also made a late application, after judgment and shortly before the appeal, to amend his particulars of claim to add an express claim for global harm. The application was refused on various procedural grounds.
What are the practical implications of the case?
This decision reiterates the importance of properly pleading reputational harm sustained abroad.
Otherwise, there is a real risk that a claimant will be unable to recover damages for that harm, even where jurisdiction is not in issue and judgment has been entered in default.
Although these are not new legal principles, this case acts as a reminder to claimants to ensure they sufficiently particularise and evidence reputational harm at the pleadings stage, including in relation to harm sustained abroad.
Case details
• Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
• Judges: Lord Justice Peter Jackson, Lord Justice Arnold and Lord Justice Warby
• Date of judgment: 13 May 2026
Francesca Sargent is an associate at Payne Hicks Beach LLP. If you have any questions about membership of our Case Analysis Expert Panels, please contact analysiscommissioning@lexisnexis.co.uk.
Document Information
Published date: 22/06/2026
Source: News Analysis
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
England
Wales
