A businesswoman has won a libel payout from her ex after he told her devout Christian boss and work colleagues she was having an affair and asked: ‘What would Jesus say?’.
Julie Stamm, an award-winning manager at a food supplies company in rural Northern Ireland, was horrified in March 2021 when her estranged husband emailed the managing director, claiming that she had ‘engaged in a lengthy extramarital affair’.
Chef Stephen Stamm alleged she had embarked on the relationship with senior colleague Steven Kennedy and that this had had ‘led to the breakup of both their marriages.’
Mrs Stamm described her employers Henderson Foodservice, based in Newtownabbey, as ‘a very religious [Christian] company’ that expected all their employees to be ‘ethically correct’.
Mr Stamm then sent a second email to another Christian manager at a major supplier, referencing the alleged affair and asking: ‘What would Jesus say?’.
Mrs Stamm – who is now divorced – and Mr Kennedy went on to sue Mr Stamm for libel, claiming the allegations were untrue and had damaged their professional and personal reputations.
They stated they had both separated from their spouses before the relationship began and that the emails had seriously damaged their reputations in the devoutly Christian environment in which they worked.
Judge Master Mark Harvey, sitting at the High Court in Northern Ireland, has now accepted that the emails were untrue and libelous after Mr Stamm failed to come to court to defend the case.
Julie Stamm, an award-winning manager at a food supplies company in rural Northern Ireland, has a won a libel claim after her ex-husband emailed bosses and claimed she had had an affair
He ordered the chef to pay £15,000 damages, plus the legal costs of the case, but declined to make a bigger payout after finding that there was no evidence that Mrs Stamm or Mr Kennedy’s careers had been impacted by the claims.
The court heard that both are successful managers working for Henderson Foodservice, a thriving catering supplies company based in Co Antrim, and employing 4,500 people.
Mrs Stamm told the court Henderson Foodservice is ‘very religious’, and that any meet and greets with its directors ‘apparently involve religious prayers’.
Judge Harvey said: ‘The lobby in the various company buildings contains bibles, other religious documents and paraphernalia. She said the values of the company are very clear, that they are ethically correct, and they want all their employees to behave that way.
‘She pointed to photographs which were exhibited to the court bundle of the work reception and lobby area, where guests wait and are surrounded by religious material including books and leaflets.’
Mrs Stamm told the judge that she and her husband had decided to separate in January 2020 – telling their children shortly afterwards – and that her relationship with her work colleague Mr Kennedy, who split with his own wife in 2019, had not started until June 2020.
But in March 2021, an email was sent to the company from an unknown sender under the name ‘Lion Pair’.
The managing director received it, but 14 other employees were ‘blind copied’ in.
Chef Stephen Stamm also wrote to the boss of a major supplier at the firm and asked ‘What would Jesus say?’
It read: ‘Steven Kennedy, Fresh Trading Manager for Henderson, and Julie Stamm, Business Development manager for Henderson Food Service, have been engaged in a lengthy extramarital affair. This affair has led to the breakup of both their marriages.’
A second email followed, sent to the boss of one of Henderson Foodservice’s major suppliers, reading: ‘Steven Kennedy of Henderson Foodservice is having an extramarital affair with a work colleague. Both marriages have ended as a result. What would Jesus say?’
The judge said: ‘Mrs Stamm stated that her now former husband was aware of the conservative nature of her employers from conversations over the years. She said that in Northern Ireland it is well known to be a Christian company.’
Turning to the libel claim, he added: ‘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.
‘Mr Kennedy states he separated from his wife in late 2019. Julie Stamm separated from Stephen Stamm in February 2020. They both stated their current relationship began after separating from their respective spouses, but before either of them was divorced.
‘The ordinary and natural meaning of the words used were that the plaintiffs had lied, they engaged in an extramarital affair, this caused the breakdown of their marriages and, in the context of the second email, Mr Kennedy acted contrary to Christian teachings.
‘The default judgment in this case means that liability has been determined and the court must accept that none of the above is true.’
He said much of Mrs Stamm’s evidence focused on claims of a denial of two promotions, but said he was not satisfied that the emails had impacted her career in the way she feared.
The same went for Mr Kennedy, the judge said.
‘There is no evidence of significant damage to Mr Kennedy, as his job status and his relationship with his clients is apparently unaffected. There is no evidence he suffered any detriment in work or damage to his reputation.
‘There was no suggestion his revered and respected status in work has been negatively affected. Moreover, I was told his employers were happy for him and Mrs Stamm and, as of July 2024, they have got engaged and indicated they have moved on with their lives.
‘This was not a prominent libel. I consider the main impact was a degree of worry, upset and embarrassment.
‘Both plaintiffs successfully continue in their senior work roles, they are engaged to be married, have moved on with their lives and in Mr Kennedy’s case he stated that he wanted to put this behind him.
‘There is no evidence of an impact on friends or family,’ the judge added, awarding the couple £7,500 each in damages and ordering Mr Stamm to pay the costs of the case, which are yet to be finalised.
‘On balance, I consider the final award in this case… is therefore both reasonable and proportionate and serves the three functions of general damage awards in defamation proceedings, namely, to act as a consolation to the plaintiffs for the distress suffered, to repair loss to the plaintiffs’ reputations and as a vindication for the plaintiffs’ reputation,’ the judge concluded.