UK case law
Hayden v Dickenson
[2020] EWHC QB 3291 · High Court (Queen's Bench Division) · 2020
The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Full judgment
18. 23 Oct 2020 (15.05)
19. 23 Oct 2020 (15.13)
20. 23 Oct 2020 (17.04) [The Defendant then posted a further copy of the screengrab from Message 7]
21. 23 Oct 2020 (19.59)
22. 23 Oct 2020 (20.08)
23. 23 Oct 2020 (20.38)
24. 24 Oct 2020 (09.16)
25. 24 Oct 2020 (09.19)
26. 24 Oct 2020 (11.52)
27. 24 Oct 2020 (12.02)
28. 24 Oct 2020 (12.25) [The Defendant posted the same screengrab to her Facebook account with the message: “Imagine suing someone over a charge you don’t want people to know about”.]
29. 24 Oct 2020 (12.27)
30. 24 Oct 2020 (17.31)
31. 24 Oct 2020 (17.55) [The Defendant also posted that same screen-grab on her Facebook account with the message “She cried”]
32. 24 Oct 2020 (c.20.52) [The Defendant posted a further screengrab of the extract from the CA Transcript (see Message 8) with the following message:] Appendix 2 – messages directed at the Defendant by @ReporterLAL on 23 October 2020
1. In response to a Tweet by the Defendant from 8 February 2013 referring to fund-raising efforts for her son, at 10.43 @ReporterLAL reply Tweeted: “Why do you spend more time obsessing over my timeline than you do with your son [name redacted], Bronwen?”
2. In response to a Tweet by the Defendant from 14 December 2012 saying that her son was alive thanks to blood donors, at 10.44 @ReporterLAL reply Tweeted: “Your son was fighting a nasty type of cancer for years – I hope your son [name redacted] is in better health now & you aren’t neglecting him to spend all day obsessing over Ms Hayden, Bronwen.”
3. In response to a Tweet by the Defendant from 9 February 2013 stating that she had been asked whether cancer was infectious, at 10.45 @ReporterLAL reply Tweeted: “I am very sorry to hear other parents were so insensitive about your son’s cancer, Bronwen. I see you raised £20 in your fundraising effort for a parachute jump Bronwen – money which went to a good cause”
4. At 10.46, @ReporterLAL Tweeted: “Bronwen – be careful what you wish for!!!”
5. At 10.48, @ReporterLAL Tweeted a link to the Defendant’s fundraising page for her son and added: “I see you raised £45 in this fundraiser”
6. At 10.52, @ReporterLAL Tweeted the following message – demonstrating that she had been researching publicly available information about the Defendant: “Bronwen is ‘actively boycotting French apples’ – to prove her nationalist credentials.”
7. At 10.52, @ReporterLAL Tweeted a similar message: “She is also refusing to buy Israeli potatoes – anti-semitism comes before her appetite”
8. At 10.59, @ReporterLAL Tweeted: “Now I know you’re a trotter-faced singleton/widow with a cancerous child – I will be giving you no more attention, Bronwen – others might decide to and not in ways you expect”
9. At 11.29, @ReporterLAL Tweeted: “Bronwen – it is too late to delete your tweets. Your tweets where you identify as Cancerous [child’s name]’s mum have been archived” See also Messages 9, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 30 in Schedule 1.