Emil Kirkegaard v Oliver Smith

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard (Emil Ole William Kirkegaard) a.k.a. William Engman — is a vexatious litigant, habitual liar, deceiver, perjurer and debtor. In December 2018, he filed a frivolous defamation lawsuit against me in the High Court of Justice (QBD). He provided a false address on his claim form, lied about his employment and took all my posts out of context in his PoC. Somehow the court approved his claim form despite he lied under oath (I sent a complaint to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service). Two of my posts were struck out before the preliminary issues trial, while the four remaining posts were ruled to be opinions based on hyperlinks (providing me with an with honest opinion legal defence) whose meanings would likely fail to meet the “serious harm” threshold for libel under statute law (Defamation Act 2013, §1(1)). Kirkegaard thus lost the judgment (Kirkegaard v Smith [2019] EWHC 3393 (QB)) but refused to comply with a costs order. I then applied for an unless order, to dismiss the lawsuit for his misconduct. Kirkegaard was also criticised by a judge, for quoting my posts out of context (Kirkegaard v Smith [63]).

In May 2020, Kirkegaard discontinued knowing the case would have been dismissed with prejudice. My four posts were upheld as honest opinion. He lost the provisional assessment of costs and was ordered to pay back ~84% of my legal costs. Unsurprisingly for a vexatious litigant and harasser, Kirkegaard missed the deadline to pay and he remains in contempt of court for noncompliance. In total he owes £42,749.67 + post-judgment interest (8% per annum). In 2021, he changed his name to William Engman and moved country from Denmark to Germany to avoid liability and debt collection. I’m currently suing Kirkegaard (Engman) in Germany to enforce the judgment debt under Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. In December 2022, I hired an attorney to send him a dunning notice (‘Mahnbescheid’) for €48,392.38 (= £42,749.67 + interest). I am suing Kirkegaard as a creditor via the judicial dunning procedure to minimise my costs. In February 2023, I obtained an enforcement order that I can use for authorising bailiffs or garnishment.

Image used under §30A Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Legal Updates

  • Donate to my legal costs here.
  • Email me tip-offs. 📧

February 13, 2023

Kirkegaard did not object to the enforcement order. He had an objection period of 14 days. This means I can apply to the appropriate court for garnishment – the enforcement order becomes a “title” and this gives me a limitation of 30 years to collect the debt under German Civil Code, §197(1). My attorney from Germany informed me they have filed the necessary paperwork, with the local court, and further put me in contact with bailiffs. Garnishment is the last resort to secure a creditor’s claim since the debtor either does not react at all or still refuses to pay; in Kirkegaard’s case, both. More information can be read here.

February 5, 2023

I sent a complaint to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service about Kirkegaard lying on his claim form.

January 26, 2023

I have mailed Kirkegaard an enforcement order.

January 25, 2023

I have additionally used service of a debt collection company (Evocate Inkasso GmbH) to send a warning letter in the post to Emil Kirkegaard (William Engman) as another payment reminder in case he ignored the mailed dunning notice (default summons).* Regardless, he missed the deadline to raise an objection.

*A few weeks later I stopped using this company.

December 30, 2022

Kirkegaard has refused the delivery of a warning letter (and copy of the judgment) I sent him in the post. The small package I mailed was returned to me, but this confirms Kirkegaard is still living at the address in Kiel, Germany; this same address is listed for the company he is a managing director and shareholder. I have passed this information onto my attorney in Germany, who has approved my dunning application.

December 1, 2022

I have decided to sue Kirkegaard via the judicial dunning procedure in Germany. This will save costs and since Kirkegaard is unresponsive I can obtain an enforcement order (to authorise bailiffs). First, however I need to send a reminder of the debt by post (in other words, a warning letter) before filing the dunning notice (‘Mahnbescheid’), which is a default summons. The judicial dunning procedure is explained here. I have now hired an attorney from the law firm advoprax AG to carry out the dunning notice which can be filed online (mahnung-online.de). I will be adding any costs I spend on the filing to Kirkegaard’s debt.

November 23, 2022

DK Hostmaster acknowledge that Emil Kirkegaard is breaking their ToS by providing a false address as a registrant and will now “look into the matter”. Klagenævnet for Domænenavne (the Complaints Board of Domain Names) responded to my complaint. I contacted Kirkegaard’s web host (simply.com) about the same problem, and have also requested them to suspend his website for breaching their terms of service.

November 22, 2022

A master (from the Royal Courts of Justice) has sealed and certified the Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Article 53), Annex I certificate for £42,749.67 – I had to apply for another order since Emil Kirkegaard changed his name to William Engman, and moved address, from Horsens in Denmark, to Kiel, Germany.

November 21, 2022

DK Hostmaster have emailed me about their decision for disclosure of information. Kirkegaard made an objection to the disclosure of his address, but DK Hostmaster agreed with me and rejected his argument.

In good faith, I have redacted this address. Although, it should be pointed out it is the house Kirkegaard made public before he made his registrant information private (screenshot). It is the address, I sent the letter before claim in Horsens, Denmark. My solicitor has confirmed Kirkegaard does not currently live at this house address; see the tingbogsattest (land register certificate). He did live there until moving to Kiel, Germany on May 1, 2021. Kirkegaard did not bother with updating his registrant information, nor has notified DK Hostmaster about his name change to William Engman. This is presumably a breach of DK Hostmaster’s ToS which can be read here. I emailed a complaint to Klagenævnet for Domænenavne.*

*The Complaints Board for Domain Names.

November 10, 2022

Nordea Bank Danmark have responded to my whistleblowing report.

November 5, 2022

A debtor can be reported to the RKI or Debitor Registret (debtor registers) if an unpaid debt exceeds kr. 1,000.00 (= £117.60). Fabritius Tengnagel & Heine is an official partner of RKI; it should not be difficult to register Kirkegaard (Engman) as a debtor which should negatively affect his credit score. His personal bank account is with Nordea Bank Danmark (he made this information public). Their website accepts so-called online whistleblowing reports on “fraudulent, dishonest, illegal or negligent activity or behaviour”.

November 1, 2022

I could get a subpoena (under the Danish Administration of Justice Act) and order Kirkegaard to attend court to provide his current home address. However, I have received confirmation using a service on the website schleswing-holstein.de, he lives in Kiel, Germany; he is the managing director and a shareholder of a registered company (Gesellschaft für deutsch-dänischen Wissenstransfer UG). Note the address for the company since July 2021 is the same as Kirkegaard’s home address. More information here and here.

October 31, 2022

I filed a report to Kirkegaard’s website domain to disclose his current address; his registrant information was formerly public via Whois Record but he made his residence details private to hinder debt collection. DK Hostmaster have sensibly approved my report as a legitimate “legal interest” but following procedure they cannot disclose the registrant’s details until 14 days after they make a decision (on assessing if my legal interest in having the address disclosed is to be given a greater weight than the registrant’s privacy).

October 29, 2022

A domain report via Whois Record by DomainTools on Kirkegaard’s site (emilkirkegaard.dk) reveals the history of his addresses in Denmark and that he intentionally mislead the High Court of Justice about his residence (he provided a wrong address on his claim form) and committed perjury. Given the fact I know (as does my solicitor) he is dishonest, it is not surprising he is a perjuror meaning he has lied under oath. Website Informer also confirms Kirkegaard registered an address for his website, different to the address on his claim form (although the latter was formerly listed). Whois Record reveal that from May 31, 2019 (for a period of one year), Kirkegaard was living in Horsens, Denmark and not Viborg; there is evidence he was already living in Horsens before he updated his domain details and prior to filing his claim form. Even if he disputes all this (I do not trust a word he says), there is undeniable proof of his misconduct; he has moved address, possibly more than once, but did notify me while litigation was ongoing (CPR §6.24).

October 18, 2022

Kirkegaard missed the deadline to respond to the second letter before claim. I cannot file for a hearing on enforcement unless I know where he resides – the court hearing’s purpose is to establish the financial situation and assets of the debtor. My solicitor therefore contacted the Danish civil registry (Det Centrale Personregister) to verify if he lives at the address we sent the letter. I received proof Kirkegaard moved from this address in Horsens, Denmark to Kiel, Germany and changed his name to William Engman – he did this on May 1, 2021, but has kept it a secret. Deceptively on social media he still purports to live in Denmark (screenshot). Kirkegaard misleadingly continues to claim to be living in Denmark on LinkedIn.

October 5, 2022

My solicitor has requested the local authorities in Horsens to confirm Emil Kirkegaard’s address.

September 22, 2022

Kirkegaard has missed the deadline (to respond to the first letter before claim), so I emailed a reminder. Fabritius Tengnagel & Heine note for debt recovery process: “If the debtor does not comply, the attorney will commence legal proceedings by suing the debtor before the district court to obtain a judgment that can be enforced”. Kirkegaard is liable to pay additional legal costs, I spend on enforcement proceedings.*

*I presume this will be at the courthouse Retten I Horsens.

September 12, 2022

I sent a letter before claim as a pre-action protocol in the post and by email to Kirkegaard for £42,749.67 + £3,072.03 post-judgment interest. Kirkegaard has ten days (until Sep. 22) to make the payment in full.

August 20, 2022

The next legal steps are outlined here; they include a letter before claim.

August 7, 2022

I emailed Kirkegaard requesting payment or will sue him in Denmark. He did not respond. I have hired a solicitor whose law firm (Fabritius Tengnagel & Heine) works alongside a Danish debtor register – RKI.*

*Ribers Kredit Information.

July 28, 2022

A master from the Royal Courts of Justice (Foreign Process Section) has sealed and certified Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Article 53), Annex I certificate for £42,749.67 (excluding post-judgment interest) and sent me a copy in the post. Under the Judgments Act 1838 (§17), Emil Kirkegaard is accruing post-judgment interest (at 8% per annum) until I am paid the money. His total debt now exceeds £45,000.00.

July 5, 2022

I apply to the Royal Courts of Justice for an Annex I certificate and registered Kirkegaard as a debtor for six years – on the Registry of Judgments, Orders and Fines in England and Wales. My solicitor informed him, that if he pays within a month, he can get his name or the judgment removed from the debt register.

July 1, 2022

A writ of control on order for costs (£29,249.67) is sealed by the Royal Courts of Justice.

June 27, 2022

I apply for a writ of control on order for costs. The writ does not include the costs order dated December 10, 2019 (£13,500.00), only final costs certificate (£26,686.43). There are two addresses on the writ – he formerly lived at the address he provided on his claim form in Viborg but relocated to Horsens (verified by Whois Record data for his website domain). There is evidence he was already living at the address in Horsens before filing his claim form. The wrong address he wrote on his claim form appears to be where his mother lives. I can now enforce the full amount on the costs order dated December 10, 2019 (not just the net-balance) because of Kirkegaard’s noncomplaince. This means his overall debt is: £26,686.43 + £13,500.00 + £2,563.24 (interest) = £42,749.67. On top of this, there is accruing post-judgment interest.

May 5, 2022

Kirkegaard’s website (emilkirkegaard.dk) is taken offline because of my abuse report.

February 28, 2022

I start enforcement of the judgment debt under Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. The UK is no longer an EU member state, but Brussels I Regulation (recast) continues to apply to enforcing judgments including costs orders in England and Wales legal proceedings that had started on, or before, December 31, 2020. Article 67 §2(a) of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement clarifies that judgments given in legal proceedings instituted before end of the transition period can still be enforced across EU member states. Under CPR §74.4(6) this requires an Annex I certificate (see Article 53). Denmark implemented Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 under Danish Law No. 518 May 8, 2013 meaning the judgment debt is enforceable and legally binding there. It does not require any exequatur proceedings: “A judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States, without any special procedure being required” (Article 36, §1).

December 18, 2022

I create a fundraiser for donations to assist with enforcement.

October 19, 2021

I recover £13,403.60 of my legal costs from the first law firm (Debenhams Ottaway) I had hired after my complaint to the Legal Ombudsman was successful. These costs stemmed from the adjourned hearing on May 22, 2019. This means I was reimbursed the full amount of the costs order (£6,778.00) + £201.60, the unless order (£5,754.00), plus awarded £750.00 in compensation for distress (see August 2, 2019). The Legal Ombudsman apparently made my complaint and their decision public on September 30, 2021.

Legal Ombudsman decision data for my complaint. A CSV file can be downloaded here (see #349 or D006522).

October 13, 2021

Under CPR §40.8 (Judgments Act 1838, §17), Kirkegaard is accruing post-judgment interest, at 8% per annum. The Limitation Act 1980, §24(1) means I have 6 years to enforce the judgment debt (until 2027).

October 12, 2021

Kirkegaard missed the 14 day deadline to pay and has refused to respond to my emails. I further suspect he committed perjury by writing a false address on his claim form* (copied on the final costs certificate). He mislead the court since he moved address and lied under oath since he was already living at different house address – to the address he wrote on his claim form. Civil Procedure Rule §6.24 notes: “Where the address for service of a party changes, that party must give notice in writing of the change as soon as it has taken place to the court and every other party” (he never me notified about a change of his address). The address on his claim form is in Viborg, Denmark. He once uploaded a curriculum vitae on his blog, naming his parents: Hanne Marie Kirkegaard and Ole Jan Pedersen. They are divorced. A search of the address on a Danish telecommunications website reveals his mother, Hanne, lives there (screenshot) but not Emil although he formerly did years ago (?); he publicly mentions the address on his OpenPsych site.

*The address is different to his current address registered for his website domain.

September 28, 2021

The final costs certificate (£26,686.43) is served to Kirkegaard by email and post. He additionally owes me interest (£2,563.24) and a net-balance of £6,722.00 from an earlier costs order (see September 15, 2020). Kirkegaard’s debt in total is: £35,971.67. He has a 14 day deadline remaining to pay me this debt.

September 15, 2021

Kirkegaard’s cronies are making more misleading statements about Kirkegaard v Smith. I usually ignore these, but one persistant idiot (@LTF_01) has repeatedly confused defamation under (English) common law with statute law* (Defamation Act, 2013). I have already highlighted this error (see September 18, 2020). I left a few tweets in response but later deleted them, although they can be read here. None of my four posts were ruled to be defamatory under statute law plus all of them were upheld as honest opinion.

*See Corbyn v Millett [2021] EWCA Civ 567 [9-10]) for the distinction.

September 8, 2021

I apply to the Senior Courts Costs Office for a final costs certificate:

  • £19,058.90 (~84% bill of costs).
  • £5,437.16 (costs assessment).
  • £1,931.75 (10% additional amount payable pursuant to Part 36*).
  • £2,563.24 (interest).

*CPR 36.17(1a).

September 7, 2021

Samuels Solicitors are no longer acting on behalf of Emil Kirkegaard who has filed a notice of change and became pro se. He missed the deadline to appeal the provisional assessment on paper, so I will apply for a final costs certificate. Since he did not respond to emails sent by my solicitor, we are billing him for the entire amount I spent on costs assessment such as drafting the bill of costs, replying to points of dispute, costs for the provisional assessment on paper, etc. In total, this adds £5,437.16, to his debt (£24,754.68).

August 17, 2021

Kirkegaard loses provisional assessment. I am awarded ~84% of the bill of costs (£19,317.52) and further beaten my own offer (£19.058.90). Kirkegaard has 21 days to appeal the assessment on paper for an oral hearing. However, to win the hearing he must achieve an adjustment of 20% in his favour (which seems improbable). I can recover £1,500.00 + VAT of my costs, I spent on the assessment under CPR §47.15(5).

August 13, 2021

The scientist and blogger PZ Meyers has written a post about Kirkegaard v Smith.

July 22, 2021

The provisional assessment of costs on paper has been assigned to costs judge Dr Mark Friston.

May 18, 2021

I sent another email to Kirkegaard requesting payment for the £6,722.00 debt.

April 27, 2021

Kirkegaard has continued to post malicious lies about me on his blog despite my solicitor sending him a cease and desist letter. I will therefore look into filing a counter-claim. This time he is falsely accusing me of orchestrating “email campaigns” to fire people from their jobs; we both know that is not remotely true.

COVID-19 pandemic delayed legal proceedings

October 16, 2020

Kirkegaard has made a misleading statement on The Unz Review about the lawsuit. Nothing he says is true despite accusing me of lying (he is demonstrably the liar). Kirkegaard preposterously claims there was no judgment unfavourable to him and he discontinued the lawsuit so “money could be spent better elsewhere”. In reality, he lost the preliminary judgment. As my solicitor noted in a letter we sent him (see December 4, 2019): “It is clear from this judgment that our client [Oliver] was the successful party and that your client’s claim no longer stands a reasonable prospect of success”). Kirkegaard discontinued after I filed an unless order against him for refusing to pay my legal costs. So if he did not discontinue a judge would have dismissed the lawsuit for his misconduct. Kirkegaard’s claim “no one won or lost the lawsuit” is patently false and contradicts his admission by email his case was meritless, after he lost the preliminary judgment; that admission was private but as a narcissist he will not admit to losing in public.

October 2, 2020

My replies to the points the dispute are filed. My solicitor in the replies (‘the conduct of all the parties’) has highlighed Kirkegaard’s unreasonable conduct throughout litigation. A costs judge will now have to determine how much the bill of costs (£22,906.12) he must pay. The provisional assessment is next year.

September 25, 2020

I hired the services of MRN Solicitors for detailed assessment of costs and to file my replies to the points of dispute. I reject Kirkegaard’s meagre offers of £8,315.20 and £11,500.00, respectively, as far too low. My counter-offer to avoid provisional assessment by a costs judge on paper is: £18,500.00 + interest = £19.058.90 – I am not willing to go any lower than this, which is a generous discount on the bill of costs.

September 21, 2020

Kirkegaard misses the deadline to pay me £6,722.00 and is in contempt of court for noncompliance.

September 18, 2020

Some posts have appeared on Reddit about Kirkegaard v Smith. I tend to avoid these discussions since they attract Kirkegaard’s cronies, who put their own spin on the lawsuit. I am not interested in their bias and misinformation. One post, however, attracted Anatoly Karlin, Kirkegaard’s main attack-dog who is mentioned several times in the preliminary judgment; he shows up aggressively defending Kirkegaard if he is the slightest criticised. Three of my posts I was sued for, were published on the comments section of Karlin’s blog on The Unz Review. These posts were written under provocation, after Karlin maligned me in an article. Karlin’s comment(s) about the lawsuit on a subreddit was deleted, but there is a screenshot.

Karlin is ill-educated and does not distinguish between the Defamation Act 2013 (i.e., statute law) and defamation under (English) common law. The distinction between these is sometimes made in case law (e.g., Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB) [23(4)]) and should not be confused as the same thing. The fact my posts were ruled to be defamatory, under common law, is rather trivial because it does not even require “serious harm”. In other words, there was no ruling my four posts have caused Kirkegaard reputational damage. Had Karlin properly read the judgment, rather than cherry-pick one part to try to make me look bad – he would realise the judge clarified: “For the avoidance of doubt, I am not deciding the question of serious harm under s. 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (Kirkegaard v Smith [62]). Karlin ignores reality my legal defence of honest opinion was upheld, that I won the preliminary judgment and Kirkegaard’s claim was meritless. I can prove with a costs order, that Kirkegaard is liable to pay my costs.

September 15, 2020

My solicitor has emailed a letter to Kirkegaard, warning if he does not pay £6,722.00 by September 21, 2020, we will take enforcement action, including ordering him to court in person for questioning (i.e., in contempt proceedings). This sum is calculated by deducting a costs order (£6,778.00) for the adjourned hearing (see May 24, 2019) from the costs order dated December 10, 2019. When he discontinued the lawsuit on May 21, 2020, the two orders were offset against each other. He still owes me the net-balance.

July 25, 2020

Kirkegaard has served a points of dispute; there will not be a default costs certificate.

July 8, 2020

The bill of costs (£22,906.12) has been served to Kirkegaard. Since he discontinued, he was not awarded damages and has to pay my legal costs. If he had taken my solicitor’s advice and discontinued before May 15, 2020 – he could have lowered the bill of costs to around £13,000.00. He irresponsibly added nearly £10,000.00 to his bill (based on the costs I spent on the summary judgment and unless order hearings), however, as a vexatious litigant and harasser it was always part of his strategy I unfairly incur legal costs.

June 5, 2020

The other frivolous lawsuit filed against me and co-defendants by an outspoken supporter of Kirkegaard (see June 17, 2019) has been dismissed by a judge for failure to state a claim. It was basically nonsense.

May 22, 2020

My solicitor has published a statement on outcome of the case.

May 21, 2020

Kirkegaard signs a notice of discontinuance, 11 days before summary judgment/unless order hearings.

May 11, 2020

My solicitor sent an email to Kirkegaard asking him to discontinue his claim. In response to this letter on the same day, Kirkegaard has finally conceded to us that his claim “no longer holds any merit following the judgment of the preliminary issues hearing” and we therefore offered him a reasonable settlement to avoid the costs of the summary judgment which includes him paying £9,000.00 (a substantial discount).

April 29, 2020

The summary judgment hearing is scheduled to take place on June 2, 2020.

April 20, 2020

I have hired a solicitor from a different law firm (Keidan Harrison).

April 9, 2020

I apply for an unless order to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice for Kirkegaard’s misconduct.*

*I have also filed an application for summary judgment under CPR §24(2a).

March 24, 2020

Kirkegaard misses the deadline to pay me the first monetary installment and is in contempt of court for noncompliance of a costs order (despite reminding him to make the payment he has been unresponsive).

March 10, 2020

Kirkegaard has varied the costs order to pay me monthly installments of £500.00.

March 3, 2020

My solicitor requested Kirkegaard provides evidence to show I did not hold an honest opinion, otherwise we will file for summary judgment. My four posts were not ruled to be statements of fact, but expressions of opinion (with a basis in hyperlinked material); so the burden of proof shifted onto Kirkegaard to prove they were not honestly held. In contrast, statements of fact in libel cases are presumed to be false unless verifiable as “substantially true” by a defendant (Defamation Act 2013, §2(1)). I did not choose the latter defence because as I maintained from the start my posts were clearly my opinions not statements of fact. The judge agreed with my meanings of the posts which were less severe than what Kirkegaard pleaded in his PoC. For this reason, it is unlikely my posts will meet the threshold of libel under the Defamation Act 2013. We have therefore asked Kirkegaard, to immediately discontinue his meritless claim to avoid costs.

January 29, 2020

I file a defense in response to the amended particulars of claim.

January 2, 2020

In response to losing the preliminary judgment – Kirkegaard is lashing out and attacking me on his blog and social media. He tweeted an outright lie, I “got Noah Carl fired” from his job. I had no involvement whatsoever in this nor does Kirkegaard provide a shred of evidence for this malicious acccusation. I will get my solicitor to send a cease and desist letter. Note my barrister during the preliminary issues trail in my defence mentioned Kirkegaard’s “conduct in repeatedly smearing and attacking the Defendant on the Claimant’s website” (Kirkegaard v Smith [41b]). This harassment I have already documented is ongoing.

January 1, 2020

Emil Kirkegaard files and serves an amended PoC.

December 11, 2019

The preliminary judgment (Kirkegaard v Smith [2019] EWHC 3393 (QB)) is public (and on 5RB); the judge ruled to “reject the Claimant’s submissions and accept the Defendant’s submissions” (Kirkegaard v Smith [57]) and criticised Kirkegaard for taking my posts out of context by ignoring the hyperlinks: “it is necessary to consider the words complained in the context in which they appear, namely the whole post by the Defendant, including the hyperlinked material. It is artificial for the Claimant to take a single sentence out of context” (Kirkegaard v Smith [63]). Kirkegaard distorted the meanings of my posts by excluding the hyperlinked material. The judge highlighted importance of hyperlinks when determining meanings of my posts citing Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2019] EWHC 281 (QB) [18]. Three of my posts contained hyperlinks (Posts 1, 2 and 3). My barrister emphasised this and argued the whole context of my posts, including hyperlinked material must be taken into consideration by the judge.

The tweet I wanted struck-out was not, however, the judge realised it “formed part of a thread of tweets which has since been deleted” (Kirkegaard v Smith supra [32]). Kirkegaard, misconstrued its meaning by ignoring the larger discussion. Concerning my three posts, with hyperlinks, it seems straightforward an ordinary reader would click these URLs (since I was quoting directly from them) to realise my posts were opinions based on the hyperlinked material. All four of my posts were decided to be unequivocally opinions; three with a basis in hyperlinks providing me with an honest opinion (formerly fair comment) defence under the Defamation Act 2013, §3. In good faith, I will not repeat these posts or their meanings although they can be read in the judgment. As clarified by the judge, there was no ruling on whether my posts were defamatory under statute law which requires serious harm* (Defamation Act 2013, §1). The ruling my four posts were defamatory under common law was not unexpected (see February 8, 2019).

*Explanatory notes.


December 10, 2019

Costs order. Kirkegaard owes 50% of my legal costs (£13,500.00).

December 4, 2019

Draft preliminary judgment. As expected, Kirkegaard humiliatingly loses – in a letter sent to Kirkegaard by my solicitor we asked him to immediately discontinue his claim (since he has no prospect of winning).

November 26, 2019

Preliminary issues trial. I was represented at the hearing by a barrister from 5RB.

November 23, 2019

One of my posts (a tweet) was read by very few people and is deleted. Kirkegaard nor his solicitor put any effort into obtaining analytics data concerning extent of its publication (how many people clicked it) on Twitter.* My account had less than 100 followers in January 2018, when I published the tweet. For this reason, I have asked the court before the hearing to get it struck out; it cannot have caused serious harm.

*The significance of this is outlined in Chandler v O’Connor [2019] EWHC 3181 [21].

August 2, 2019

My appeal was rejected, however, my written complaint to the Legal Ombudsman was later accepted (see October 19, 2021). Kirkegaard inadvisably filed an unless order against me (despite I had a legitimate reason to dispute the costs order and I was reimbursed my legal costs as well as awarded compensation).

June 17, 2019

A vexatious litigant and internet troll named Dennis George Lomax (a.k.a. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax) who has been an outspoken supporter of Kirkegaard’s lawsuit against me has now filed his own frivolous libel lawsuit against me (and other defendants) in the United States District Court of Massachusetts. Lomax’s amended civil complaint wildly is asking for $2,000,000.00 in general damages. Lomax is additionally suing the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), my twin brother and six more defendants including admins of two WMF wikis. The allegations about me in the complaint are unsubstantiated and categorically untrue.

May 24, 2019

I appeal the costs order against me (£6,778.00 + £200.00 VAT) for the adjournment.

May 22, 2019

The preliminary hearing has been adjourned because of a procedural error and relisted for November 26, 2019 before Mr Justice Julian Knowles. Although the costs order will be in Kirkegaard’s favour since my solicitor made the mistake – I seek to be reimbursed full costs for the order. If not, I will file a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. The error could have been avoided and arguably was the result of poor service.

April 4, 2019

In poor taste, Kirkegaard has uploaded a private letter my solicitor sent him (without our permission) to his website (screenshot). The letter points out I am unemployed, autistic and to raise money for my legal costs – I am crowdfunding. Although Kirkegaard, uploaded this letter to disparage me, it actually proves he is a vexatious litigant and an unpleasant individual. He is suing me, despite I am ‘collection-proof’ as part of a harassment campaign and vendetta he started years ago. Under Civil Procedure Rule §44.4(3a) note costs are partly decided based on conduct of each party, “before, as well as during the proceedings”. His unreasonable conduct, is certainly something I will highlight during the detailed assessment of costs.

March 27, 2019

I have filed my skeleton argument in advance of the preliminary hearing. Two of my posts complained of are struck out and cannot be used in the preliminary hearing revealing how abysmal Kirkegaard’s case is.

February 8, 2019

I have applied for a preliminary issues trial to determine the meanings of my four posts. The hearing will also determine whether meanings of the words complained of in the PoC are defamatory of the Claimant under common law (this should not be confused with defamation under the Defamation Act 2013 which requires “serious harm”). The threshold of defamation under (English) common law is low-bar and does not require reputational damage. Distinction between libel under common and statute law is sometimes made in case law (e.g., Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB) [23(4)]). Under common law there is not an “entirely satisfactory definition of the word defamatory” (Berkoff v Burchill & Anor [1996] EWCA Civ 564) but generally speaking, defamation is understood to be an imputation that affects in an adverse manner the attitude of other individuals towards the claimant; this is rather trivial and not serious harm.

January 10, 2019

I hired a solicitor from a law firm (Debenhams Ottaway) to assist me with my legal defence.

December 7, 2018

Kirkegaard files a defamation lawsuit against me in the High Court of Justice (QBD). I recieved a copy of his claim form and particulars of claim. Attempts to settle out of court failed, since we both rejected each others’ offers. I am not offering Kirkegaard a sum of money under CPR §36.6 greater than nominal: 0.1% of his claim in damages (= £4.00) since I have a legal defence for my posts, honest opinion (Defamation Act, 2013, §3). I have a very good chance of winning the lawsuit in court. The pleaded meanings of my posts (the words complained of) in his PoC are incorrect; secondly, he is falsely arguing my posts were written as statements of fact, when they were clearly my opinions. He is ignoring hyperlinks in my posts which provide the basis of my opinions. This is probably intentional seeming as he is a dishonest person.

August 1, 2018

Emil Kirkegaard via Samuels Solicitors sent me a letter before claim and legal threats, demanding I pay him £40,000.00 in damages* for six posts complained of (two on Twitter, one on my blog, and three on The Unz Review). Kirkegaard also wants an injunction to prevent me from repeating the posts or similar statements, as well as an apology. He alleges my posts are defamatory, causing him “serious harm” under the Defamation Act 2013, §1(1). No evidence at all is provided my posts have damaged his reputation and I dispute his intepretation on the meanings of my posts. He is (deliberately) quoting them out of context.

*General damages.