Introduction

The case of Corbyn v. Millett ([2021] EWCA Civ 567) presented a significant examination of defamation law, particularly focusing on distinguishing between statements of fact and opinion. The appellant, Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP, challenged the decisions made during the trial of preliminary issues in a libel action brought against him by the claimant, Richard Millett. The dispute arose from remarks Corbyn made during a televised interview on the Andrew Marr Show, where he referred to "Zionists" in a manner that prompted allegations of anti-Semitism.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the initial decision by Saini J., which found that Corbyn's statements referred to Millett and conveyed defamatory meanings under common law. The key issues revolved around whether Corbyn's remarks constituted statements of fact or opinion and whether they met the threshold for defamation by lowering Millett's reputation among right-thinking people.

Saini J. concluded that Corbyn's use of terms like "disruptive" and "abusive" were factual allegations rather than mere opinions. These allegations were deemed to lower Millett's standing in society and meet the threshold of seriousness required for defamation claims.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced established case law to frame the analysis:

• Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019]: Emphasized the importance of the reader's perception in determining the defamatory nature of a statement.
• Monroe v Hopkins [2017]: Established the "consensus requirement" for defamation, requiring that the statement lowers the claimant in the estimation of society.
• Trustworthy Defamation Cases: Cases like Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2019] and Vardy v Rooney [2020] were cited to illustrate the effectiveness of preliminary trials post the Defamation Act 2013.
• Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019]: Clarified the principles surrounding the defense of honest opinion under the 2013 Act.
• Joseph v Spiller [2010]: Supported the argument against conflating statements of opinion with statements of fact.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal reasoning centered on whether Corbyn's statements were opinions or factual assertions. The court applied the following principles:

• **Natural and Ordinary Meaning**: Determining how an ordinary viewer would interpret the words used.
• **Consensus Requirement**: Assessing if the statements tend to lower Millett's reputation among reasonable people.
• **Threshold of Seriousness**: Evaluating if the defamatory statements are serious enough to harm Millett's reputation substantially.

Corbyn argued that his statements were expressions of honest opinion, a defense under the Defamation Act 2013. However, the court found that the statements went beyond opinion, presenting allegations of disruptive and abusive behavior that could be interpreted as factual claims damaging to Millett's reputation.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent requirements for establishing defamation, particularly in distinguishing between statements of fact and opinion. It underscores the necessity for public figures to exercise caution in their public statements, ensuring that their remarks do not inadvertently constitute defamatory factual claims. Future cases may reference this judgment when assessing similar distinctions, especially in high-profile political contexts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Defamation Act 2013: A key piece of legislation that reformed defamation law in the UK, introducing new defenses and altering procedural aspects.
• Honest Opinion Defense: A legal protection allowing individuals to express genuine opinions without facing defamation claims, provided certain conditions are met.
• Consensus Requirement: The idea that for a statement to be defamatory, it must be one that would lower the claimant in the eyes of reasonable people.
• Threshold of Seriousness: The requirement that defamatory statements must be serious enough to harm the claimant's reputation significantly.
• Bare Comment: A type of comment that implies facts without providing specifics, often treated as factual statements rather than opinions.

Conclusion

The Corbyn v. Millett case serves as a pivotal reference in defamation law, particularly in the nuanced differentiation between factual claims and expressions of opinion. The Court of Appeal's affirmation of the lower court's decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to protecting individuals' reputations against unfounded claims, while also balancing the rights to free speech. This judgment emphasizes the importance of context, wording, and the perceived intent behind statements, providing clear guidance for both legal practitioners and public figures in future defamation matters.