Falter v Altzmon

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns libel proceedings involving a preliminary trial of meaning ordered by Deputy Master Sullivan on 19 April 2018. The Claimant is the chairman of Company A, an organisation campaigning against anti-Semitism. The Defendant is a jazz musician and author of Jewish origin who operates a personal website. The libel claim arises from an article published on the Defendant's website between 18 July and 20 December 2017. The article, titled "Anti-Semitism is merely a business plan," accused the Claimant of fabricating anti-Semitic incidents to obtain funding and personal income, thereby encouraging hatred against Jews. The Claimant pleads that the article imputes he deliberately encourages anti-Semitism to defraud the British taxpayer. The Defendant has not yet filed a formal defence but has provided a letter outlining his position on the meaning of the article.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the article published by the Defendant?
2. Whether the meaning includes an imputation that the Claimant is dishonest in fabricating anti-Semitic incidents to obtain funds.
3. Whether the article imputes that the Claimant encourages anti-Semitism or is himself anti-Semitic.
4. Whether the hyperlink to a Sky News interview embedded in the article should be taken into account in determining the meaning.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimant's Arguments

• The article means the Claimant deliberately encourages British people to hate Jews.
• The Claimant's business plan is to incite anti-Semitism to secure increasing funds from the British taxpayer.
• Where anti-Semitism does not exist, the Claimant dishonestly fabricates incidents to defraud the taxpayer.
• The Claimant is a devious fraud and hypocrite, publicly campaigning against anti-Semitism but secretly wanting Jews to be hated for financial gain.
• The verbs "manufacture," "fabricate," and "invent" are plain accusations of dishonesty inconsistent with mere characterisation.
• The article imputes that the Claimant seeks to defraud specifically the British taxpayer.

Defendant's Arguments

• The article means the Claimant dishonestly fabricates anti-Semitic incidents by characterising conduct as anti-Semitic when it is not and exaggerates the prevalence of anti-Semitism.
• The article does not explicitly impute that the Claimant himself is anti-Semitic.
• The words do not narrow who the Claimant seeks to mislead or defraud, contesting that it is specifically the British taxpayer.
• The hyperlink to the Sky News interview is relevant context as reasonable readers would likely watch it to understand the article fully.
• The Claimant's pleaded meaning implicitly includes that he is an anti-Semite due to accusations of hypocrisy.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the article's language and context to determine its natural and ordinary meaning, applying established principles from leading authorities. The court emphasized that the reasonable reader is neither naïve nor unduly suspicious and that over-analysis should be avoided. The article was read as a whole, and the court rejected strained or forced interpretations.

Regarding the hyperlink to the Sky News interview embedded in the article, the court acknowledged the evolving challenges posed by online publications with hyperlinks. It recognized that not every reader would follow hyperlinks, and no rigid rule requires treating all linked material as read. The court found that, in this case, the interview did not materially alter the meaning derived from the article itself.

The court considered the parties’ rival meanings. It accepted that the article accuses the Claimant of dishonestly fabricating anti-Semitic incidents and exaggerating their prevalence, including mischaracterising legitimate criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. The article also suggests that by doing so, the Claimant risks increasing anti-Semitism. The motivation attributed to the Claimant is financial gain, including obtaining funds from British taxpayers, supporting Company A and providing the Claimant’s income. Finally, the article imputes hypocrisy: the Claimant publicly campaigns against anti-Semitism yet is content with its continuation because it benefits him financially.

The court rejected the Claimant’s submission that the article imputes he wants people to hate Jews, clarifying that the risk of increased anti-Semitism arises from his alleged fabrication and exaggeration rather than direct encouragement. The court also addressed whether the article imputes the Claimant himself is anti-Semitic, concluding that this was not a necessary or natural meaning.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the natural and ordinary meaning of the article is as follows:

(a) The Claimant dishonestly fabricated anti-Semitic incidents and exaggerated their prevalence;
(b) By doing so, he risks increasing anti-Semitism;
(c) His motivation was to obtain funds, including from British taxpayers, to support Company A and his own income;
(d) The funds were obtained by fraud; and
(e) The Claimant is hypocritical, publicly opposing anti-Semitism while benefiting from its continuation.

This ruling defines the defamatory meaning the Claimant must prove for the libel claim to succeed.

The decision directly affects the parties by clarifying the meaning to be applied in subsequent stages of the proceedings. The opinion does not establish any new legal precedent but applies and clarifies existing principles in the context of online publications with hyperlinks.