Robertson v. Newquest (Sunday Herald) Ltd & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a former Member of Parliament and Secretary General of NATO, brought an action for defamation against the Defendant newspaper and associated parties. The dispute arose from a defamatory notice posted anonymously on the Defendant's online reader forum in February 2003. The Plaintiff initially sought damages of £200,000, which was later settled by the Defendant with a tender of £25,000 plus expenses, accepted by the Plaintiff in September 2004. The Defendant subsequently published an article concerning the settlement and the legal issues surrounding liability for defamatory statements posted by anonymous contributors on their website. The Plaintiff contended that the publication was defamatory in two respects: first, that the article repeated false allegations linking the Plaintiff to the Dunblane massacre; and second, that it portrayed the Plaintiff as irrational, bullying, and hypocritical in raising legal proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the words complained of in the Defendant’s publication were capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the Plaintiff.
2. Whether the "repetition rule" applied to the Defendant’s article in relation to the defamatory allegations originally made by third parties.
3. Whether the article, read as a whole, portrayed the Plaintiff as irrational, bullying, or hypocritical in raising legal proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The article repeated the false allegation that the Plaintiff was responsible for the Dunblane massacre by reproducing a sentence from another newspaper, thus invoking the "repetition rule" which attributes defamatory meaning to repetition of allegations.
• The "bane and antidote" principle did not apply effectively to remove the defamatory imputation, as the article did not clearly negate the allegations.
• The article portrayed the Plaintiff as irrational, bullying, and hypocritical by implying he initiated court proceedings hastily and without justification.

Appellee's Arguments

• The article, when read as a whole, could not reasonably be understood as repeating or endorsing the defamatory allegations; rather, it explained the Plaintiff’s successful settlement and apology received.
• The "repetition rule" was inapplicable because the publication’s overall tenor refuted the defamatory imputation.
• The article did not portray the Plaintiff as irrational, bullying, or hypocritical; instead, it showed understanding of his distress and vindication through settlement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Russell v Stubbs Ltd (1913 SC (HL) 14)	Interpretation of defamatory meaning as reasonable, natural, and necessary interpretation.	Used to establish the general principle of interpreting alleged defamatory language in context.
James v Baird (1916 SC (HL) 158)	Supporting authority on defamation principles.	Referenced as part of the body of Scottish defamation law.
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd ([1964] AC 234)	"Repetition rule" and "bane and antidote" principle in defamation.	Discussed extensively regarding the repetition of defamatory allegations and the effect of subsequent negation.
Gillick v British Broadcasting Corporation ([1996] EMLR 267)	Defamation principles and interpretation.	Cited as part of the wider jurisprudence on defamatory meaning.
McCann v Scottish Media Newspapers Ltd (2000 SLT 256)	Defamation law application.	Referenced in relation to defamatory meaning and publication.
Chalmers v Payne ((1835) 2 Cr M & R 156)	"Bane and antidote" principle.	Used to explain that defamatory statements followed by clear negation may be considered together.
Nicholson v Merritt ((1909) 109 Kentucky R 369)	Effect of disclaimers on defamatory statements.	Quoted to show that disclaimers do not necessarily defeat defamation claims.
Wright & Greig v George Outram & Co ((1890) 17 R 596)	Liability for circulating defamatory statements.	Confirmed that circulation of slander renders the publisher liable.
Pope v George Outram & Co Ltd (1909 SC 230)	Reporting defamatory allegations conveys the defamatory imputation.	Held that reporting allegations without endorsing them can still be defamatory.
Bik v Mirror Newspapers Ltd ([1979] 2 NSWLR 679)	Defamation and "bane and antidote" principle in Australian law.	Illustrated that an article clearing a person of allegations is not defamatory.
Stern v Piper ([1997] QB 123)	Scope and effect of the repetition rule.	Discussed the rule's impact on meaning attributed to alleged defamatory statements.
Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd	Requirement to consider publication as a whole for defamatory meaning.	Affirmed that context and entire publication must be considered in defamation claims.
Jameel v Times Newspapers Ltd	Application of "bane and antidote" and interpretation of defamatory meaning.	Clarified the difficulty of removing defamatory meaning by subsequent negation as a matter of law.
Mark v Associated Newspapers Ltd ([2002] EWCA Civ 772)	Explanation of the repetition rule and defamation principles.	Referenced to support the established nature of the repetition rule.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by emphasizing the established principle in Scots law that the meaning attributed to allegedly defamatory language must be a reasonable, natural, and necessary interpretation of the words in their context. The court acknowledged the "repetition rule," which holds that repetition of defamatory allegations may itself be defamatory, even if accompanied by disclaimers. However, the court found this rule conflicted with the overarching principle of interpreting the publication as a whole.

Applying these principles, the court examined the Defendant's article in its entirety rather than isolating particular sentences. The article was found to primarily explain the background and circumstances of the Plaintiff's successful defamation claim and settlement, emphasizing that the defamatory allegation originated from an anonymous online posting unknown to the Defendant at the time.

The court accepted that the article did not repeat or endorse the false allegation that the Plaintiff was responsible for the Dunblane massacre, but rather clarified that the Plaintiff had received an apology and damages from the Defendant. The photographs of articles from other newspapers were viewed as background context rather than a republication of defamatory claims.

Regarding the second complaint, the court found no reasonable reader would interpret the article as portraying the Plaintiff as irrational, bullying, or hypocritical. The article reflected understanding of the Plaintiff's distress and vindication through settlement. The implication that the Plaintiff acted promptly to defend his reputation was not defamatory but reasonable and understandable.

Accordingly, the court held that the words complained of were not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged by the Plaintiff.

Holding and Implications

The court sustained the Defendant's preliminary plea and dismissed the Plaintiff's action for defamation.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff’s claim was rejected on the basis that the publication was not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles concerning interpretation of defamatory meaning and the "repetition rule" in the context of internet publications and online forums.