Ppatpat and brandmal, et al. v AerospaceEnjoyer 2025 Civ 27
ppatpat and brandmal, et al. v AerospaceEnjoyer [2025] Civ 27
| Date of judgment | 15th October 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Hmquestionable |
| Grounds |
|
| Verdict | Liable for Abuse of Process |
| Result |
|
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
JUDGMENT by Judge Hmquestionable
Introduction
[1] The Defendant, Busiedcomb, was sued under the tort of Abuse of Process, found in Article 31 of the Civil Code. This arose from their filing of a frivolous complaint against the entire judiciary (see ChatGPT v thelittlesparty, astralisyndica, ivycactus, britzy1707, ed.zz, diapason_ben, ppatpat_, hmquestionable, terak, brandmal11, mrgamerboy, delusionallou, creative0960, no case number assigned [“ChatGPT”]). I found the defendant summarily liable, and awarded damages of 2850 tau as well as a court order restraining the defendant from filing certain types of suits, which is listed in greater detail at [20]. I set out my reasoning below.
Liability
[2] For summary liability, the plaintiffs must –
- (a) make out a case, prima facie, against the defendant;
- (b) show that the defendant has no possible defense to the case; and,
- (c) show that there is no arguable issue or question for the defendant.
[3] I found that these factors had been made out, based on the Civil Complaint. I invited the defense to provide a response. Pursuant to the Courtroom Procedures Act, to overcome a summary judgment, the defendant must “disprove any one of the 3 factors, or show that there must be a trial for some other reason”. However, the defense simply stated that they did not consent to a summary judgment. After clarifying that they had no further response, I found summarily for the plaintiffs, as the consent of the defense does not matter for the purposes of a summary judgment.
Damages requested
[4] As to damages, the plaintiffs claimed 20,000 tau per person. This came to a sum of 120,000 tau, as there were 6 plaintiffs.
[5] The plaintiffs argued that the high damages were justified because –
- (a) The abuse of process was targeted towards the entire judiciary;
- (b) The complaint was filed for an improper purpose; and,
- (c) Time was wasted to deal with the improper complaint.
[6] They then set out their claim for 20,000 tau each as follows:
- 10,000 tau for “time, anxiety, reputational upset, and the practical burdens of responding to an abusive filing”,
- 5000 tau for “the insulting/public manner, persistence, and the express intent to annoy and pressure.”,
and 5000 tau as exemplary damages, to deter further such action.
[7] The plaintiffs also invited me to elevate their costs for the purposes of responding to the abuse, issue an injunction to disallow the defendant from commencing any further civil process against the plaintiffs, and to issue interest on the damages.
[8] The defendants waived their right to respond to the claim.
Damages assigned
[9] The Court is “best professional judgment” to render a “fair and proportional” remedy. It must also only award damages if satisfied that “the defendant's actions have caused an undue financial or social burden on the plaintiff”. I am satisfied that there has been an undue financial and social burden on the plaintiff. Therefore, I shall begin by considering each of the Plaintiff’s recommended factors.
[10] Firstly, the “time, anxiety, reputational upset, and the practical burdens”. I am cautious of providing damages for “anxiety” and “reputational upset”. These appear to be harms which should be relieved by the torts of harassment and defamation respectively. When the legislature has set out certain requirements for certain types of harms to be remedied, it is wise for the Court to abide by them. I will therefore only consider submissions on “time” and “the practical burdens”.
[11] On this matter the Court is of the opinion that 10,000 tau is an overly large amount to be awarded as damages. Taking judicial notice of the proceedings in the relevant case, the defendants (the plaintiffs in this case) were not required to take part in the case at all. In fact, the case is not even listed on the official rota of the Inferior Court, as it did not commence. Therefore, the Court cannot award such a disproportionate amount of damages for this event.
[12] The plaintiffs then proceeded to claim a total of 10,000 tau for the aggravated and exemplary damages caused by the factors which I have listed above. They also cite the English case Rookes v Barnard (“Rookes”) in an attempt to justify exemplary damages.
[13] In Rookes, the House of Lords opined on when punitive damages should be permitted. These were the “oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of the government”, conduct by the defendant which has been “calculated by him to make a profit for himself”, and those permitted by law.
[14] SimDemocracy has its own precedent on “punitive” damages (though not explicitly called that). In cases such as BelugaWhaleMan9 v State of SimDemocracy [2024] Civ 2, the Court declared its outrage through awarding damages for the “severely upsetting nature of the violation of their rights by being unfairly banned for as much as seven (7) months”. Similarly, in TheReak v State of SimDemocracy [2023] Civ 2, the Court awarded an exorbitant sum to the Plaintiff for their “troubles” at being summarily banned without the proper procedure being followed.
[15] However, the most recent precedent relating to punitive damages arises from the case NotCommunist366 v SimDemocracy Independent Oversight Agency [2025] Civ 14 (“NotCommunist366”). In that case, Confused J awarded a “token” amount of 1.5 tau as punitive damages. This was due to the “significant monetary compensation” which was already provided to the winning party owing to the costs of the case.
[16] NotCommunist366 is an extremely applicable case to this matter. In both cases the costs arose from suits which were filed in an improper manner. What is different is that in this case, the Plaintiffs sued for damages through the tort of abuse of process instead of collecting on costs, which is allowed by Article 27 of the Courtroom Procedures Act. It therefore follows that, similar to NotCommunist366, the Court should first assess a reasonable amount to be paid for the legal costs of the Plaintiffs in ChatGPT, followed by assessing an amount intended to convey the damages intended to express the outrage of the Court at the “undue financial or social burden” caused by the abuse of process of the defendant (if present), taking into account the fact that there has already been assessments for costs of the plaintiffs.
[17] The plaintiffs also argued that punitive damages had to serve the element of deterrence. I am not satisfied by this argument. SimDemocracy law has many avenues of deterring the filing of frivolous suits. For instance, a filer could be subject to adverse cost orders, or criminal sanctions for the making of frivolous claims. As the legislature has set out multiple avenues of deterring similar frivolous claims, I fail to see why this Court should add an additional mode of deterrence.
[18] Now comes the question of the aggravated damages. The plaintiffs argue that Courts commonly award aggravated damages which remedy injury to dignity or feelings. However, as I have mentioned in [10], such damages should not be pursued through the tort of abuse of process.
[19] Continuing on to the matter of costs, the Court shall not make a determination on that matter at this time. Costs are assigned at the end of trial, pursuant to Article 27 of the Courtroom Procedures Act.
[20] As to the matter of the Court Order preventing the defendant from instituting further civil cases against the named plaintiffs without leave of the Inferior Court, I am of the opinion that this injunction is necessary. The complaint which was filed against the plaintiffs was deficient and clearly intended to waste the time of the plaintiffs, and was brought without reasonable and probable cause. Therefore, I issue a Court Order restraining the defendant from filing any more civil complaints against the plaintiffs without a determination of reasonable and probable cause on the case from any Inferior Court Judge for a period of six (6) months.
Quantum of damages
[21] I shall divide the financial damages into two parts: Compensatory damages and exemplary damages.
[22] The compensatory damages shall be set at the reasonable attorney’s fee. Pursuant to NotCommunist366, that fee is 225 tau, meaning a total of 1350 tau for the 6 plaintiffs.
[23] As to exemplary damages, the Court notes that it is not the objective of civil cases to provide for punishment for social harm to the community at large. That objective lies distinctly in the realm of criminal cases. Therefore, the “undue social burden” specified in the Civil Code must refer to burdens which are distinctly suffered by the Plaintiffs, and not by the general community. In this case, the undue social burden arises from the nature of the abuse of process, which is an undue waste of time of the plaintiffs, and an undue burden imposed on the plaintiffs for the preparation of the case. The undue financial burden arises from the costs of preparing for the case and obtaining legal assistance.
[24] The Court is of the opinion that nominal punitive damages are not justified in this instance. The purpose of punitive damages is to convey the natural outrage of the Court at the undue harm on the plaintiffs. If this outrage was not present, there would be no need to award punitive damages. Nominal punitive damages therefore do not make a lot of sense.
[25] The Court will therefore award a sum of 250 tau per plaintiff as punitive damages. The Court considers this to be a fair and proportionate amount which expresses the natural outrage of the Court at the undue harms mentioned in [23]. This comes to a sum of 1500 tau.
Remedy
[26] To conclude, the plaintiffs are awarded 2850 tau in damages as well as a Court Order described in [20] as the remedy for Abuse of Process. Costs are not included in these damages.
[27] As to interest, that is a power held by the Court of Review and not this Court. See the Judiciary Act 2025 for more information.
JUDGMENT by Judge Hmquestionable
Introduction
[28] The rest of this case pertains to the torts of Defamation and Harassment. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant’s submissions to the Inferior Court in ChatGPT were defamatory. These submissions include allegations that the plaintiffs “Yapp[ed] so long in their verdicts that they probably ignored so much case law spamming facts about “his Lordship”
Being the President
Too much money
Prosecution bias
Defense bias
Slow mode bias
Abusing slow mode
Abusing ChatGPT”.
Defamation
[29] The Defense did not contest the veracity of the submissions. Rather, they attempt to frame it as jest, which is a defense if the defendant had made the statements with “jest or sarcastically without malicious intent”. The Plaintiffs contend that the standards for the defense were not met.
[30] Despite making this defense, the Defense admitted no evidence to show the Defendant’s state of mind where making the submissions. It is on each party, in a civil case, to prove matters of fact to a standard of a balance of probabilities (in this case, “without malicious intent”). I shall therefore have to reject the Defense’s submission on this matter.
[31] The Plaintiffs have to prove that the statements are “false or misleading”. To this end, the Plaintiffs were each called to the stand, and were questioned on whether they ignored binding case law, or were biased as mentioned in the submissions. Most of the plaintiffs responded that they were not biased. However, Hon. Terak, one of the Plaintiffs, answered that “Every human being is biased in some way. Denying that would be an untruth.”. Plaintiff Ivy Cactus and Mrgamerboy were not called to the stand.
[32] I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Defense has made false statements about the plaintiffs ppatpat_, terak, brandmal11, and delusionallou, relating to them ignoring binding case law, and their various types of biases alleged. Each plaintiff testified that the statements were false (except the aforementioned plaintiffs). The testimony was not incredible, and the Defense did not attempt to impeach the credibility of any witness. However, I do not make any finding relating to the other 2 plaintiffs, as no evidence was submitted for their claim.
[33] The second element of defamation is that of an intent to cause harm. The Plaintiffs argue that the intent is evident from the Defendant’s lack of evidence towards his claims, both at the filing of the submissions, or now at trial. The Defendants argued that the statements were made as a joke and would therefore have no intention to cause harm. However, no evidence was submitted relating to the state of mind of the Defendant.
[34] I therefore take a negative inference from the Defense’s lack of presentation of evidence as to whether the submissions were intended as a joke. There is no reasonable explanation as to why they chose not to call the Defendant as a witness, despite concurrently arguing that the submissions made by the defendant were not intended to cause harm. The assumption will be made that any testimony by the defendant relating to this matter would have been detrimental to the Defense.
[35] Plaintiff’s argument allows the claim of intent to harm to reach the balance of probabilities standard. The lack of explanation as to the purpose of the submissions, coupled with the lack of evidence as to the truth of the submissions, is sufficient to satisfy this court that the Defendant had intended to cause harm.
[36] Defendant is LIABLE for the claims of Defamation to ppatpat_, terak, brandmal11, and delusionallou, and NOT LIABLE for the Defamation claims to the other plaintiffs.
Damages-Defamation
[37] The damages available for defamatory content read:
§4. The damages available for defamation shall be payment for any salary or business lost if applicable along with payment for any reputational damage suffered as determined by the court based upon the following factors : (a) the nature and gravity of the defamation; (b) the conduct, position and standing of the plaintiff and the defendant; (c) the mode and extent of publication; (d) the natural indignation of the court at the injury caused to the plaintiff; (e) the conduct of the defendant from the time the defamatory statement is published to the very moment of the verdict; (f) whether an apology and retraction of the defamatory statement was made; (g) the presence of malice; and, (h) Such other factors as the court may consider necessary. The Court may also require the defendant to retract the statement publicly.
[38] Plaintiff submits an amount of 120,000 tau in total as damages for defamation. Defense did not make any submissions.
[39] I shall now examine each factor.
- [39.1] There is a moderate amount of gravity attached to the submission. It is, after all, a filing in court. However, any reasonable person would be able to see that the submission was intended as a joke. For instance, the listed plaintiff is “ChatGPT (01000011 01101000 01100001 01110100 01000111 01010000 01010100 00001010)”. The claims are also nonsensical, and any reasonable person who reads the filing would come to the conclusion that it is not a serious filing.
- [39.2] Standing was not argued and no evidence relating to standing was submitted.
- [39.3] Statements were published as a court filing.
- [39.4] The Court is satisfied that no additional damages are required for the injury which the plaintiff has suffered. The plaintiffs did not credibly submit any evidence relating to injury caused by the defamatory statements, as they instead made general references to a “massive attack upon our credibility” and “explaining routine decisions”. The only evidence which I believe may be credible is ppatpat’s submission that “Attorneys in my court disregarded my instructions until reminded multiple times”.
- [39.5] The conduct of the Defendant has been most irregular. The Defendant was even held in contempt of court at one point during the trial.
- [39.6] No apology or retraction was made.
- [39.7] No evidence submitted relating to malice.
[40] On the whole, given the complete lack of credible submissions to the injury to the plaintiffs caused by defamation, I start the damages at a nominal sum of 1 tau. I increase the sum to 5 tau owing to factor [39.1] and [39.3]. I increase the sum further to 10 tau owing to factor [39.4], for ppatpat.
[41] Therefore, nominal damages of 5 tau per plaintiff are awarded to terak, brandmal11 and delusionallou for Defamation. 10 tau is awarded to ppatpat_ for Defamation.
Harassment
[42] Civil Harassment is intentionally causing “harassment, alarm or distress to any person”.
[43] In relation to the element of Harassment, Alarm or Distress, the plaintiffs answered questions on the stand about whether they had lost sleep, withdrew from participation in SimDemocracy, or if they experienced anxiety. The four participating plaintiffs, ppatpat_, terak, brandmal11, and delusionallou, each answered the questions.
[44] Delusionallou answered that she had not lost sleep, had withdrawn from participation within SimDemocracy, and “That they would try to defame me” in relation to anxiety. I cannot understand the third answer to the question, and I will therefore disregard it.
[45] Withdrawal from SimDemocracy may be a result of harassment, alarm, or distress. However, it may also be caused by a variety of other things. There is insufficient proof here to reach a standard of balance of probabilities relating to harassment, alarm or distress.
[46] Brandmal11 answered that he had not lost sleep, could not pinpoint the source of his decreased participation, and said that he had felt anxiety from the preparation of a defense against ChatGPT. This, however, is not related to the actions of the defendant. The claim fails here as well.
[47] Terak answered that he felt angry, but did not feel any anxiety. He also testified that he had to spend time on preparing a defense instead of general participation in SimDemocracy.
[48] Anger is not Harassment, Alarm or Distress. Harassment occurs generally when there is repeated conduct that makes one feel uncomfortable. Alarm occurs when there is a shock experienced. Distress has a more anxiety related meaning attached to it. Anger does not fall under any of these categories. The claim therefore fails here too.
[49] Ppatpat testified that he had changes caused to his sleep schedule by the defendant, that he attempted to avoid the defendant, including by leaving voice channels, and that he experienced anxiety relating to his ability to obtain government positions.
[50] The testimony is not inherently incredible. The Defendant did not attempt to impeach the credibility of the witness, or rebut this testimony. I therefore find that distress has been caused to Ppatpat by the actions of the Defendant.
[51] In relation to intent, Plaintiff submits that the selection of the court case request channel for submission of ChatGPT, the accusatory phrasing and the request for punitive measures like arrest and detention demonstrated the intent of the Defendant. Defense contends that ChatGPT is a joke, and therefore no intent to harm can be inferred.
[52] For the same reasons as in [30], the Defense’s argument is rejected. I therefore accept that the Defendant had caused distress with intent.
Harassment-Damages
[53] The Plaintiff has suffered a substantial effect on their life due to the distress caused by the Defendant’s actions. A change in sleep schedule, and a constant desire to avoid the Defendant would cause a certain amount of unwanted change to Plaintiff’s life. However, the submission by the Plaintiff of 20,000 tau is unprecedented and unwarranted with regard to the facts of this case.
[54] On the whole, a fair and proportional sum is around 1000 tau for the distress faced by the Defendant, which is equal to twice the salary of the President of SimDemocracy, one of the higher paying vocations in the state, with reference to Article 19, §7.1. of the Civil Code.
[55] In conclusion, the Defendant is liable for Harassment towards ppatpat_, and must pay damages of 1000 tau to that plaintiff.