3/6/23, 9:54 AM FGX v Gaunt [2023] EWHC 419 (KB) (27 February 2023) claimant in Willock had generated the images herself, with encouragement. There was no publication of the images. The Claimant in this case was not even aware that the images had been generated and the images were published on a pornographic site, alongside a photo of her face. 57. I consider it appropriate, in principle, to make an award of damages to compensate the Claimant for additional distress arising from aggravating features of the Defendant's conduct. Aggravating features include the needless uploading of a photograph of the Claimant's face onto the pornographic website and the evidence that indicates the Defendant obtained payment for the images. A further aggravating feature is the Defendant's failure to participate in these proceedings. His failure to do so has deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to obtain information about the extent of publication, which remains a preoccupation for her and a barrier to her recovery. Nonetheless, I bear in mind the need to avoid double counting. The diagnosis of chronic PTSD appears to stem, in part at least, from these features of the Defendant's conduct. Accordingly, I do not make a separate award for aggravated damages and the uplift in this regard is modest. 58. Drawing the strands together, I award general damages of £60,000. This figure includes an award for aggravated damages. In assessing this sum, I have sought to reflect the situation up to and as at the date of judgment. I do not therefore consider a separate award of interest on this head of loss is appropriate (see Rees v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2021] EWCA Civ 49 per Davis LJ at [47]). Special damages 59. The remaining heads of loss concern special damages, for which the evidential burden falls on the Claimant. The Court was provided with bank statements and receipts of purchase. Cost of hotel, furniture and wasted holiday 60. The Claimant seeks £1800 for the cost of hotel accommodation whilst she found somewhere else to live. I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the Claimant to leave the Defendant's house when she did. The Claimant provided invoices for hotel costs for two periods: (i) 25th October 2017 – 15th November 2017, totalling £1155, and (ii) 28th November 2017 – 2nd December 2017, totalling £220. I award the amount evinced by the invoices: £1375. 61. Given the unplanned nature of her departure from the home, the Claimant left behind items and furniture that she had purchased during her relationship with the Defendant and relies on credit card statements, receipts, and photographs as evidence. In her witness statement she estimates her total expenditure amounted to £8000. The items listed in the schedule add up to £4,348.99 and the £8000 figure is described as an 'estimate'. Accordingly, I award £4,348.99. 62. The Claimant seeks £3,351.05 for the costs of an aborted holiday with the Defendant to Cape Town for November 2017. I am satisfied that the Claimant could not be expected to holiday with the Defendant. However, her statement to the police indicates that she went on holiday and had friends to stay with her at the hotels. Accordingly, I only award the costs of the Defendant's flight (£614.77). Past treatment costs 63. The Claimant seeks £5,377.49 for: Psychiatric treatment from a Consultant Psychiatrist (£2680) Therapy from a Clinical Therapist (£546.33) Dentistry to repair teeth damaged by the Claimant grinding her teeth at night (£954.56) Prescriptions (£1,196.60) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/419.html&query=(defamation) 11/13