Although the exact date of the change is presently unknown, it is likely to be in or around April 2019 and will have a significant impact on estate administration and the costs of dying.
The recent High Court decision in Zahir Monir v Steve Wood  EWHC 3525 (QB), in which liability for a defamatory tweet sent by a member of the Bristol Branch of UKIP was attributed to the then-Chairman of the branch, could have serious repercussions for our clients who communicate via social media group accounts, but don’t actually compose some or all of the messages the organisation posts.
UKIP’s Bristol branch had a twitter account which, on 4 May 2018, was used by John Langley, the Vice Chairman of the branch, to post a tweet he had composed. The tweet consisted of a photo of Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, with two men, including the claimant, Mr Monir. The tweet referred to the photo and stated: ‘Sarah champion labour candidate for Rotherham stood with 2 suspended child grooming taxi drivers DO NOT VOTE LABOUR.’
Mr Monir lived in Rotherham. However, he was not a taxi driver and, until the tweet, there was no allegation of any involvement with ‘child grooming.’ Consequently, he requested the deletion of the tweet, which did not happen until 1 June (as a result of Mr Monir complaining to the police).
Mr Monir sued Stephen Wood, the then-Chairman of the branch, for defamation, rather than Mr Langley, on the basis that Mr Wood was legally responsible for the tweet. On 19 December 2018, Nicklin J handed down his judgement in Mr Monir’s favour, finding that Mr Langley was ‘quite clearly’ acting as an agent for Mr Wood when posting material on the branch’s Twitter account.
The rationale behind the decision
The central issue was whether Mr Wood was legally responsible for the defamatory tweet. In coming to his decision, Nicklin J came to the following decisions regarding the use of the branch’s Twitter account:
- Mr Wood controlled the account (i.e. it was registered to his email address).
- Mr Wood could control Mr Langley’s use of the account by, for example, changing his password.
- Mr Wood had given other branch committee members details of the account.
- Mr Wood was ‘fully proficient’ in using Twitter.
- In 2014 Mr Wood had delegated use of the Twitter account, and other social media accounts, to Mr Langley.
- Although Mr Wood instructed Mr Langley to obtain prior approval for publication on these social media accounts, in practice, neither party observed this process.
- Mr Wood allowed Mr Langley to use the account to promote Mr Wood’s own candidacy for election.
- Mr Langley had been posting racist material on the account despite Mr Wood’s instructions not to do so.
Although Nicklin J found that Mr Wood was not actively aware of Mr Langley’s racist tweets and that, had he of been aware, he would have deleted them; the judge found that:
‘Mr Wood may be open to criticism on the basis that he should have been aware of what Mr Langley was posting. He was Chairman of UKIP Bristol (and bore ultimate responsibility for the actions of the branch); he was standing for election as an MP; Mr Langley was using the UKIP Bristol social media platforms to campaign for him; and, most significantly, to his knowledge, Mr Langley had been acting in an increasingly erratic way and specifically had posted the racist material on [another] Twitter account at the end of April, some 10 days before the election.’
Moreover, despite being aware of Mr Langley’s behaviour, the judge held that, in the run-up to the 2015 General Election, Mr Wood did not take control of the branch’s social media accounts. Therefore, the judge held that Mr Langley was ‘quite clearly’ acting as Mr Wood’s agent when he was posting material on the account (including the tweet relating to Mr Monir). Consequently, Mr Monir was awarded £40,000 in damages.
As is very common, many of our clients use social media platforms to communicate with their customers, employees, trustees, council members, parents and other stakeholders. To do this, we have found that they often use groups, which means that those responsible for the account are not necessarily the same as those who are actively ‘using’ the account (i.e. those that are composing and posting tweets etc.). Thus, this judgement could come as a shock to those account controllers.
It means that the controllers of social media accounts, such as Twitter, should:
- Make sure that any policies they have regarding the use of the account and the publication of materials are published in an accessible place and are clear as to what is and is not expected of the user(s).
- Ensure robust enforcement of these policies against the user(s) of the account. As, under the judgement, setting out general guidelines and then simply trusting users to adhere to them is not sufficient (according to Nicklin J, ‘Mr Wood cannot escape liability because Mr Langley acted against the general prohibition on publication of material that was an attack on others. He was acting within the scope of the job that had been delegated to him by Mr Wood’).
- Be aware of the fact that if users publish material that supports the controller’s overall aims (such as supporters publishing on behalf of candidates during election campaigns), then there is the risk that the actions of the user(s) will be attributable to the controller by virtue of the principles of agency.
For help with understanding your responsibilities regarding social media, please contact Peter Coe.
NHS England recently reported plans to recruit an ‘army of advisors’ to support GPs, following evidence that approximately half of all appointments were not related to medical conditions.
In injury claims, should you disclose the total figure of compensation to your injured party where they have suffered a brain injury and lack capacity to manage their finances?
Anthony Collins Solicitors first Social Impact Report attributes 91% of its 2017/18 work to directly improving lives, communities and society.
Following the decision in the Court of Appeal last summer, the Supreme Court has announced today, that Mencap’s leave to appeal this has been granted.
2019 is now in full swing and with it comes the first company secretary update of the year!
The Government announced in April 2018 that they would release new proposals at the end of 2018 and so, as we stretch in 2019, we now have the new consultation proposals.
A recent High Court decision could have repercussions for our clients who communicate via social media group accounts but don’t actually compose some or all of the messages the organisation posts.
Last night (31 January 2019), Anthony Collins Solicitors won Law Firm of the Year at the sixth, annual Eclipse Proclaim Modern Law Awards, held in Manchester.
Anthony Collins Solicitors shortlisted in four categories at BLS Awards.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.