Dan Wootton denies High Court claim that he catfished ‘former colleague’

Broadcaster and journalist Dan Wootton has responded to a court claim against him, denying that he catfished a man who says he was a former colleague.

Earlier this year, the man filed a case claiming that in 2009 he was tricked by Wootton into sending him explicit photographs of himself as well as an explicit video.

He says Wootton did this by sending him sexualised messages, pretending to be a woman called Maria Joseph.

In documents filed at the High Court, Wootton denies ever communicating “via any medium” with the man, who has been granted anonymity by the court.

Wootton also denies that he “ever has been in possession” of any “explicit photographs or video” portraying the man.

The anonymous claimant has previously told the court that in 2009 Wootton communicated with him via email, SMS and Facebook.

The man says that at the time he believed he was communicating with a woman called Maria Joseph, and did not know that he was, in fact, communicating with Wootton, according to the claim.

The man says that the messages soon became “sexualised and flirtatious”, and that Wootton sent him photographs of a female which, he claims, Wootton falsely pretended were of the woman the claimant thought he had been communicating with.

He says that some of the photographs showed the female partially or fully naked.

The man also said Wootton sent him a video of a man and a woman having sex, again pretending that the female in the video was the woman whom the anonymous claimant thought he was communicating with.

In documents filed recently at the High Court, Wootton said it was denied that he “communicated with the claimant via any medium – including email, SMS or Facebook; and denied that he sent the claimant any images or videos”.

The anonymous man also previously said in his claim that believing that he was communicating with a woman, he responded to the messages in a flirtatious and sexualised manner.

He said Wootton (pretending to be Maria Joseph) encouraged him to send explicit photographs of himself.

The man added that “in the induced belief that he was communicating with Maria Joseph, an unknown female who was interested in a sexual relationship”, and who had already sent explicit images of herself, he was “persuaded to and did send” explicit photographs of himself as well as an explicit video.

Wootton says in court documents it is denied that he “was or ever has been in possession of any flirtatious or sexualised messages from the claimant, or explicit photographs or video portraying the claimant”.

He also said in the documents that the anonymous claimant did not believe that the recipient of his messages was called Maria Joseph.

Wootton added that the claimant stated to Maria Joseph: “Maria (if that is really your name)… we are in a catch 22. i can’t play without finding this out. won’t tell them as i’m not gonna advertise the fact i have apparently started to chatting to hot strangers on the internet. or tell me your real name then? [sic]”.

The anonymous claimant is suing Wootton, saying that he has suffered pain, injury, humiliation and hurt to his feelings. And that he has sustained loss and damage because of Wootton’s actions.

He says that he has suffered from major depressive order and use of alcohol.

Wootton has said that he does not accept that the anonymous claimant has suffered “any injury as a result of any communication of messages, images, and/or videos between him and ‘Maria Joseph’.”

He has denied that he and the man were former colleagues, and said the man’s claim should not be allowed, because any case should have been brought years before.