Harman v Burge
Decision date: 29 July 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] EWHC 2836 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This was a damages inquiry after admissions of passing off and unlawful interference when the defendant took control of the claimant's holiday business website and disrupted access. The court found short-term and some limited continuing harm but rejected the claimant's multi-year loss model as speculative, awarding lost profits and mitigation costs for the year to 31 August 2011 (with a 50% temporal discount) and a total judgment of £39,701 including interest. A late amendment to plead public policy (ex turpi causa) was refused.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The judgment applies the ordinary approach to quantifying loss from wrongful interference with a website: the claimant must prove loss on the balance of probabilities by comparing a reasonably supported hypothetical counterfactual of profits with actual profits. Expert models that rest on speculative assumptions about long-term search-engine ranking or SEO effects should be treated with caution and require direct technical or historical evidence to be credited.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judge noted that specialist historical analyses or witnesses with specific SEO/Google expertise would be helpful to establish the duration and extent of online ranking effects and that, in their absence, inferences of prolonged online harm are speculative. It was also observed that mitigation costs which the claimant is legally liable to pay can be recoverable as damages.