Morgan v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a libel claim brought by Plaintiff against Defendant, the publishers of a newspaper, over an article published in print and online on 24 August 2017 under the headline: "Building tycoons using staff discounts to snap up homes meant for families" ("the Article").

On 28 June 2018, the court heard and determined two preliminary issues in the libel claim: (1) the meaning of the Article; and (2) whether the allegations made were fact or opinion, delivering an extempore judgment on these matters.

The court found the meaning of the Article to be that (i) Plaintiff was able to purchase six houses built by his company intended as affordable homes for less-well off buyers after his company secured changes to local authority planning rules; (ii) Plaintiff purchased these six properties at a substantial discount, paying £860,000 against a market value of £2.1 million, standing to make a large personal gain; and (iii) Plaintiff exploited his position in a greedy, unethical, and morally unacceptable way.

The court determined that elements (i) and (ii) were factual and not defamatory, while element (iii) was an expression of opinion based on the conduct described. Overall, the Article was found to be defamatory of Plaintiff at common law, an admission made by Defendant.

The procedural context includes an order dated 19 June 2018 directing trial of the preliminary issues and a concurrent determination of whether the meaning conveyed a serious defamatory imputation pursuant to section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. Defendant initially admitted the serious harm threshold was met but later sought to amend its Defence to deny this.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Article?
2. Are the allegations made in the Article statements of fact or expressions of opinion?
3. Does the Article meet the threshold of causing or likely causing serious harm to Plaintiff’s reputation under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013?
4. Whether Defendant may amend its Defence to withdraw an admission of serious harm.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Plaintiff’s submissions)

• The Article’s expressions of opinion are clearly stated upon non-defamatory factual allegations.
• The defamatory opinions are attributed to identified individuals described as experts and public figures, whose views readers would respect and consider seriously.
• The opinion criticises Plaintiff for behaviour described as greedy, unethical, and morally unacceptable, but these adjectives do not ascribe the most reprehensible behaviour violating established societal norms.
• Objectively, the opinions expressed are not likely to cause serious harm to Plaintiff’s reputation under the statutory threshold.

Appellee's Arguments (Defendant’s submissions)

• The Article conveys a seriously defamatory meaning depicting Plaintiff as morally unacceptable and a "fat cat" exploiting less well-off individuals.
• The quoted individuals are authoritative figures (experts, an MP, and a former councillor), lending weight to their condemnation of Plaintiff.
• The newspaper fully adopts and endorses the criticism, as seen in both the Article’s headline and the accompanying Comment section, inviting readers to agree with the condemnation.
• The serious defamatory meaning is dependent on the factual allegations and likely to cause serious harm to Plaintiff’s reputation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the Article, concluding it conveyed a defamatory meaning that Plaintiff exploited his position unethically for personal gain. The court distinguished between factual allegations, which were not defamatory, and expressions of opinion, which were defamatory.

Regarding serious harm under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, the court considered the statutory threshold higher than the common law standard, referencing the Court of Appeal's decision in Lachaux. Defendant initially admitted serious harm but later sought to withdraw this admission, necessitating consideration of whether the Article's meaning was seriously defamatory.

The court analyzed the nature of the opinions expressed, the authority of the individuals quoted, and the newspaper’s endorsement of the criticism, including the Comment section that reinforced the Article’s condemnation of Plaintiff. The court found the defamatory meaning to be serious, likely to provoke outrage in reasonable readers and bring Plaintiff into contempt of right-thinking persons.

The court rejected the argument that the opinion’s recognition as such mitigated serious harm, explaining that defamatory opinion can still cause serious reputational damage. The court discussed the historical and statutory framework for fair comment/honest opinion, emphasizing the requirement that opinions be based on true facts and that defamatory opinions can cause serious harm.

Finally, the court addressed the procedural issue of Defendant’s application to amend its Defence to withdraw the admission of serious harm. The court decided to determine the serious harm issue first and found the Article met the serious harm threshold, rendering the amendment application unnecessary and dismissing it.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Article conveyed a meaning that was seriously defamatory of Plaintiff and that the publication was likely to cause serious harm to Plaintiff’s reputation under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013.

The court dismissed Defendant’s application to amend its Defence to withdraw the admission of serious harm, as such an amendment would serve no purpose in light of the court’s findings.

The decision directly affects the parties by confirming the serious harm threshold is met, allowing the claim to proceed on that basis. The court made no determination on the merits of the honest opinion defence, which remains to be addressed later. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing legal principles to the facts of this case.