Background
Ovik Mktrchyan, an international businessman, sued 2Trom Media Group Ltd and its director, Viktor Tokarev, for defamation. The claim arose from an article published on 19 October 2024 on “The London Post,” a website owned by 2Trom Media. The article, titled “Corruption Networks of Uzbekistan: From Washington to Tashkent,” accused Mktrchyan of being a key figure in a corruption network that embezzles state funds, launders money for political favors, and had corruptly used his company’s acquisition of a bank to seize state assets.
The defendants did not respond to the lawsuit or appear in court. As a result, the claimant, Mktrchyan, obtained a default judgment on liability. The case then proceeded to a hearing before Fordham J to determine the appropriate remedies, including the amount of damages, injunctive relief, and costs. The court noted that “The London Post” had been described by other publications as a “pink slime” operation—an ostensibly local news website used to publish propaganda or disinformation—and that the defamatory article was part of a wider, coordinated disinformation campaign against the claimant.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court awarded the claimant a total of £215,000 in damages for the defamatory article. This sum comprised £175,000 in general damages to vindicate his reputation and compensate for distress and reputational harm, plus an additional £40,000 in aggravated damages. The court accepted the claimant’s evidence that the article caused serious harm, including causing UK financial institutions to refuse banking services (“debanking”) to his companies after its publication.
The aggravated damages were awarded based on the defendants’ conduct. The court found that the article was part of a malicious disinformation campaign, not a piece of legitimate journalism. This conclusion was supported by the fact that “The London Post” falsely claimed to be regulated by the UK’s press standards organization (IPSO), the article’s sensationalist style lacked a journalist’s byline, and the defendants had completely ignored all legal proceedings and communications. In addition to the monetary award, the court granted an injunction prohibiting the defendants from republishing the defamatory allegations.
Key Takeaways
- UK courts will award substantial damages for defamation, even when the defendant fails to appear in court.
- Evidence of a coordinated disinformation campaign and a publisher’s malicious conduct can lead to a significant award of aggravated damages.
- Concrete financial harm, such as the refusal of banking services (“debanking”), can be used to prove serious reputational damage in a defamation claim.
- Publishing defamatory material on so-called “pink slime” or pseudo-journalism websites carries significant legal and financial risk.
Why It Matters
This decision sends a strong message that operators of disinformation websites can be held financially accountable for publishing defamatory content. It demonstrates that UK courts are willing to look behind the facade of a seemingly legitimate news outlet to identify and penalize malicious campaigns designed to harm an individual’s reputation. For attorneys and their clients who are targets of online smears and “black PR” operations, this case provides a clear precedent for seeking substantial redress, proving that even anonymous or unresponsive online publishers are not beyond the reach of the law.