The proceedings concerned claims for injunctive relief and damages arising from allegedly defamatory social media statements with antisemitism-related content, as well as a counterclaim alleging online harassment. The court held that, in respect of the antisemitism-related allegations and other serious accusations, the statutory requirement of “serious harm” under defamation law was not met, because a sufficient causal link between the publications and substantial reputational damage had not been established. The claim was therefore dismissed, with the court emphasising the importance of protecting freedom of expression even in the context of sharp and highly polarised debate. Defamation Act 2013, section 1; Defamation Act 2013, sections 2–4; Protection from Harassment Act 1997, sections 1, 2, 7; Human Rights Act 1998, section 12.