Dan Wootton Rejects Catfishing Allegation in Court

Published: 18 November 2025 Tuesday. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Broadcaster and columnist Dan Wootton has issued a firm denial in response to a civil claim filed against him in the High Court, rejecting allegations that he posed online as a woman to deceive a man into sending explicit images more than a decade ago. The claimant, whose identity is protected by an anonymity order, brought forward the case earlier this year, alleging that the events took place in 2009 when he says he believed he was exchanging messages with a woman named Maria Joseph. According to the claim, flirtatious and increasingly sexual communication led to his sharing intimate photographs and a video. The man says he did not know at the time that the individual he was supposedly communicating with was, in his view, Wootton.

In legal documents now submitted to the High Court, Wootton denies all aspects of the accusation. He asserts that he never communicated with the claimant through any medium and has never possessed any explicit photographs or recordings of him. His legal team state that the entire narrative is untrue and that the claimant’s recollections do not match reality. They also reject the idea that the pair were ever colleagues, contradicting part of the claimant’s account and arguing that no professional relationship existed between them at any point.

Central to the claimant’s allegation is his insistence that the person contacting him in 2009 presented themselves as a woman named Maria Joseph. According to his account, the messages he received via email, SMS and Facebook became sexualised. He alleges that the online persona sent him photographs of a woman who appeared partially or fully nude, claiming they were genuine images of the supposed Maria. The claimant further alleges that a sexually explicit video featuring a man and a woman was sent to him, again under the assertion that the woman in the footage was the individual with whom he believed he was communicating.

The claimant says he was misled into thinking he was engaged in a private, consensual exchange with a woman seeking a romantic or sexual connection. Believing this, he says he reciprocated by sending intimate pictures of himself, along with a video. In his submission, he argues that these actions were taken under false pretences and that he would never have shared such material had he known the true identity of the person behind the messages. He maintains that the deception caused him substantial embarrassment and emotional harm that continues to affect him. He claims the experience contributed to major depressive disorder and excessive alcohol use, conditions he believes stem from the events of 2009.

Wootton, however, challenges the credibility of the claimant’s version of events. In the documents filed by his legal representatives, Wootton disputes that any communication occurred and also questions whether the claimant genuinely believed he was speaking to a woman using the name Maria Joseph. His defence cites a message written by the claimant at the time, in which he appeared to express doubts about the authenticity of the name. In the message, the claimant reportedly told the supposed Maria that he was unsure whether that was her real name. Wootton’s team argue that this demonstrates the claimant himself cast doubt on the identity of the person he was speaking to, undermining the idea that he was completely deceived.

Wootton’s defence further states that he does not accept that the claimant’s mental health difficulties stem from the alleged exchanges. His legal team argue that there is no evidence linking Wootton to the messages or the online persona described. They also contend that the claim should be dismissed because too much time has passed since the events, arguing that the claimant should have brought the case many years earlier if he genuinely believed he had suffered harm.

The claimant, however, remains insistent that he was targeted by Wootton and that the experience had a profound and lasting impact on him. His legal team say that at the time he had no reason to suspect that the person messaging him was not who she claimed to be. They argue that the psychological distress he describes, combined with his belief that he was manipulated into providing intimate material, amounts to a serious violation of trust that deserves legal recognition. From the claimant’s perspective, the emotional consequences remain significant, and he argues that the harm continues to interfere with his daily life.

The case presents complex questions for the High Court. It concerns events said to have occurred in the early era of social media, when digital communication platforms operated differently and when archived data may be limited or lost. Establishing the authenticity of messages from that time poses challenges, and the court will need to determine whether the claimant can provide sufficient evidence linking Wootton to the identity behind the messages. It must also decide whether the claim falls within the allowable timeframe for legal action or whether the passage of more than fifteen years renders the case invalid under existing rules.

Wootton, who has faced scrutiny in recent years for unrelated allegations, maintains his innocence and says he intends to defend himself thoroughly. His legal team describe the claimant’s account as deeply flawed and insist that he has been wrongly accused. They argue that the claim lacks substance and should not proceed to a full hearing.

For the claimant, the case represents an opportunity to seek redress and recognition for what he believes was a deeply damaging betrayal. His anonymity remains protected by court order due to the sensitive nature of the allegations. He says he has lived for years with the emotional fallout of the incident and wants the court to acknowledge the harm he describes.

The High Court will now examine the evidence presented by both parties to determine whether the claim should advance. If it does proceed, it is likely to involve a lengthy legal process as the court evaluates conflicting accounts and attempts to establish whether the events described in the claim occurred as alleged. With both sides firmly committed to their positions, the case is set to draw continued public interest as it progresses through the legal system.