UK web sites ordered to identify maker of defamatory comments

Mr Justice Robert Owen in the High Court allowed an application under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 for an order for disclosure of the identity of a web site user who used the name "Zeddust".

The Act provides:

“No court may require a person to disclose… the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it can be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.”

The Motley Fool and Interactive Investor discussion boards acted as discussion forums for various companies. Zeddust began posting defamatory comments on Motley Fool's web site. After complaints by Totalise, Zeddust was temporarily removed and then finally banned. Totalise sought disclosure of Zeddust's identity. Motley Fool refused. Postings began appearing on Interactive Investor's web site. Interactive Investor removed the postings but refused disclosure. Totalise went to court, seeking an order for disclosure of identity.

Justice Owen considered that the protection provided to newspapers by the Contempt of Court Act had no application to Motley Fool and Interactive Investor because neither took responsibility for what was posted on their discussion boards nor exercised editorial control. He also believed that, in any event, disclosure was necessary “in the interests of justice.”

Justice Owen was satisfied that the contents of the postings were defamatory and considered that, in view of the potential audience for the postings and the potential harm to Totalise, “the balance fell in favour of [Totalise] otherwise one could defame with impunity on web sites.”