3/6/23, 9:54 AM FGX v Gaunt [2023] EWHC 419 (KB) (27 February 2023) 32. Dr Chahl's evidence is consistent with a treatment diary of the Claimant set out in a letter from the Claimant's treating consultant psychiatrist. Online content removal 33. The report by Mr Wadsworth (Igniyte Ltd) sets out three options to remove the images from the internet: (i) removal of the content directly from the host site; (ii) deindexing, whereby links are removed from a search engine's results; and (iii) keyword removal, which is similar to deindexing but relates to specific searches rather than all search terms. The latter two processes essentially constitute 'burying' the content in question. His report explains that "Unfortunately at first glance, there is no way to determine how many images/videos are online. When a list of URLs are provided, we can then search google for identical images to see if anything has been duplicated on alternative sites. Based on our experience dealing with similar cases, the likelihood of images and videos being replicated elsewhere is high. Once we have collected the images/videos...we will then start the removal process. As outlined...we have 3 proven methods that require different steps for removal…. The cost for this service is dependent on quantity. If there is a significant amount of content (over 20 image links/videos) we can offer a monthly payment plan at an estimated £3000 plus VAT per month. On average this will continue for six months. In the event there are less than 20 image links/videos we may offer a per link removal which would start at £1000 plus VAT per link, however less than 20 links/videos in this type of removal is rare." 34. Counsel for the Claimant explained that the police have retained the Defendant's hard drives and the absence of disclosure has meant that the information required for Mr Wadsworth to make a more precise assessment is not currently available to the Claimant. Findings 35. I make the following findings relevant to the assessment of general damages: 35. 1. The Claimant and Defendant were in a personal and intimate relationship at the relevant time. 35. 2. The images show the Claimant naked in the shower and bathroom and sleeping topless. They are intimate images, albeit not of sexual activity. 35. 3. The relationship between the Claimant and Defendant did not involve any intimate image-based activity. 35. 4. The images were uploaded onto a pornographic website accompanied by a photograph of the Claimant's face, making her recognisable to anyone who knows her. 35. 5. It is not known how many images were uploaded or the extent to which they have been replicated and downloaded. The expert assessment is that the likelihood of the images having being replicated elsewhere is high and it would be rare for there to be less than 20 images available to view. 35. 6. The available evidence indicates the Defendant obtained payment for uploading the images 35. 7. As a result of the Defendant's conduct the Claimant suffers from chronic PTSD. She is one of a minority of cases in which PTSD becomes chronic over several years, causing an enduring personality change. 35. 8. Separately, the Claimant has suffered a relapse of an existing mixed Anxiety and Depressive disorder, of which greater than 50% is attributable to the Defendant's conduct. 35. 9. The continued existence of the images online is a significant source of ongoing distress to the Claimant and a barrier to her recovery. https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/419.html&query=(defamation) 7/13