Businesswoman Secures Libel Damages After Ex-Husband's Defamatory Emails to Christian Employer
A businesswoman has been awarded a libel payout from her former husband after he sent emails to her devout Christian boss and colleagues, falsely claiming she was having an affair and provocatively asking: 'What would Jesus say?'. Julie Stamm, an award-winning manager at Henderson Foodservice, a food supplies company in rural Northern Ireland, was horrified in March 2021 when her estranged husband, chef Stephen Stamm, emailed the managing director alleging she had 'engaged in a lengthy extramarital affair'.
Emails Sent to Religious Workplace Environment
Mrs Stamm described Henderson Foodservice, based in Newtownabbey, Co Antrim, as 'a very religious [Christian] company' that expects all employees to be 'ethically correct'. The court heard that the company's lobby areas contain bibles and other religious materials, and meetings with directors often involve prayers. Mr Stamm then sent a second email to a Christian manager at a major supplier, repeating the allegations and posing the question: 'What would Jesus say?'.
Mrs Stamm, who is now divorced, and her colleague Steven Kennedy sued Mr Stamm for libel, asserting the claims were untrue and had damaged their professional and personal reputations within the devout Christian work environment. They maintained that both had separated from their spouses before their relationship began in June 2020.
Court Finds Emails Libellous in Default Judgment
Judge Master Mark Harvey at the High Court in Northern Ireland accepted the emails were libellous after Mr Stamm failed to defend the case. The judge noted the emails suggested the plaintiffs had lied, engaged in an extramarital affair causing marriage breakdowns, and acted contrary to Christian teachings. However, he found no evidence that their careers at the thriving company, which employs 4,500 people, had been significantly impacted.
Judge Harvey stated: 'The thrust of the plaintiffs' claims is that the emails were untrue, defamatory, and they caused significant damage to their personal and professional reputations, as well as serious hurt, distress and humiliation.' He added that the default judgment meant the court must accept none of the allegations were true.
Damages Awarded Despite Limited Career Impact
The judge ordered Mr Stamm to pay £15,000 in damages—£7,500 each to Mrs Stamm and Mr Kennedy—plus legal costs. He declined a larger payout, finding no proof of career detriment, noting both remain successful senior managers and are now engaged. Judge Harvey remarked: 'This was not a prominent libel. I consider the main impact was a degree of worry, upset and embarrassment.'
He concluded the award was reasonable and proportionate, serving to console the plaintiffs for distress, repair reputational loss, and vindicate their reputations. The case highlights the serious consequences of defamatory communications in workplace settings, particularly within religiously conservative environments.
