Which court decided it?

High Court (Queen's Bench) in 2017. Neutral citation: [2017] EWHC 433 (QB).

Why does it matter for UK journalists?

Tweets meeting the s.1 serious-harm test are defamatory even at low engagement figures. Meaning determined by the ordinary Twitter reader in context (retweets, deletion, follow-ups all relevant). Damages calibrated to reputational and distress harm within the specific Twitter reach.

Monroe v Hopkins

[2017] EWHC 433 (QB) — High Court (Queen's Bench), 2017

Last reviewed: 14 July 2026Next review due: 14 January 2027

What the court held

One of the first major Twitter-defamation cases in England. Warby J found that two tweets by Katie Hopkins had caused serious harm to Jack Monroe's reputation, ordering damages of £24,000 and costs. Confirmed that "serious harm" under s.1 Defamation Act 2013 applies fully to Twitter.

Key rulings

Tweets meeting the s.1 serious-harm test are defamatory even at low engagement figures.
Meaning determined by the ordinary Twitter reader in context (retweets, deletion, follow-ups all relevant).
Damages calibrated to reputational and distress harm within the specific Twitter reach.

Topics

DefamationSocial mediaSerious harm

Related cases (citator)

How this case connects to others in the landmark set — lines of authority, statutory supersession, and companion rulings.

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27
Applies the serious-harm requirement (Defamation Act 2013 s.1).
Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17
Both address defamation on social media.

Acts cited

Defamation Act 2013

Authoritative source

Read the full judgment on BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute):

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/433.html

Cite this page

Format

Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB) (High Court (Queen's Bench)) &lt;https://www.ukjournohub.com/law/landmark-cases/monroe-hopkins&gt; accessed 14 July 2026.

Please cite when quoting or paraphrasing on UK JournoHub — see /ai.txt for policy.

Related landmark cases

Landmark caseDoyle v Smith [2018] EWHC 2935 (QB)Read →Landmark caseLachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27Read →Landmark caseStocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17Read →Landmark caseAttorney General v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB)Read →

Case summaries are drafted by UK JournoHub Editorial for practising UK journalists. They are not legal advice. Always consult primary sources and, for high-risk stories, take specialist legal advice.