Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff is a businessman with an accountancy background and the Defendant is a teacher. They were in an intimate relationship between 2013 and 2019, which began while the Plaintiff was living with his wife. The Plaintiff and his wife separated in 2016, and the Plaintiff and Defendant cohabited from September 2017 with the Defendant's children from a previous marriage. They separated around the end of 2019 or beginning of 2020, and their relationship has since been highly acrimonious, with mutual accusations of abusive conduct. The Plaintiff later reconciled with his wife.
In August 2020, the Plaintiff issued defamation proceedings against the Defendant, complaining of 22 statements published by the Defendant between November 2019 and July 2020. The Defendant does not dispute publishing the statements or that they are essentially factual allegations concerning abuse by the Plaintiff and issues relating to his personal and business conduct, which she asserts are true. The Plaintiff denies these allegations, claiming they are part of an abusive smear campaign against him. The core dispute concerns who was the perpetrator and who the victim of relationship abuse.
The judgment follows a preliminary issues trial to determine three preliminary questions: (a) the single natural and ordinary meaning of each statement; (b) whether each statement has a defamatory tendency at common law; and (c) whether the publication of each statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the Plaintiff's reputation.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the single natural and ordinary meaning of the statements complained of, as understood by the hypothetical reasonable reader?
- Does each statement, in that meaning, have a defamatory tendency at common law?
- Has the publication of each statement caused or is it likely to cause serious harm to the Plaintiff's reputation under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013?
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's statements are false and form part of an abusive smear campaign aimed at damaging his reputation.
- He argues that each publication caused or is likely to cause serious reputational harm to him, supporting this with some specific examples such as his son's loss of a teaching job, impact on business associates, and strained social relations.
- The Plaintiff relies on both specific instances of harm and a general inferential case based on the gravity of the allegations, the scale of publication, and the likelihood of percolation or grapevine effects.
- He acknowledges difficulties in gathering evidence from other publishees and relies heavily on his own evidence and inferences from the circumstances.
- The Plaintiff emphasizes the Defendant's repeated and widespread conduct, which he describes as a smear campaign, and seeks to link serious harm to his reputation to the publications complained of.
Defendant's Arguments
- The Defendant does not dispute publishing the statements or their factual nature but asserts that the allegations are true.
- She argues that the publications are justified due to the grave nature of the conduct alleged.
- Regarding serious harm, the Defendant challenges the Plaintiff's evidence, noting the lack of corroboration from identified publishees and disputes any causal link between the complained-of publications and serious reputational harm.
- She highlights that some of the Plaintiff's examples of harm are attributable to other factors or separate conduct by the Defendant, not the specific publications complained of.
- The Defendant also points out that defamation law requires causation of harm by each individual publication, and a general complaint about a course of conduct or multiple statements is insufficient.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Koutsogiannis v Random House Group [2020] 4 WLR 25 |
Principles of determining the single natural and ordinary meaning of defamatory words; distinction between fact and opinion. |
Guided the court in an objective, reasonable reader approach to meaning and in distinguishing fact from opinion in the statements complained of. |
| Vardy v Rooney [2020] EWC 3156 (QB) |
Approach to interpreting social online communications; avoidance of over-elaborate textual analysis. |
Supported the court's approach to the social media context of the publications, emphasizing impressionistic reading. |
| Stocker v Stocker [2019] 2 WLR 1033 |
Interpretation of defamatory meaning and context in family disputes. |
Informed the court's approach to the acrimonious relationship context and the nature of the allegations. |
| Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] 3 WLR 253 |
Interpretation of the serious harm requirement under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013; causation and factual proof of harm. |
Provided the framework for assessing whether each publication caused or was likely to cause serious harm, emphasizing the need for evidence and causation. |
| Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283 |
‘Grapevine’ or ‘percolation’ effect of defamatory publications; inference of harm from onward dissemination. |
Considered in assessing the potential for reputational harm through onward gossip and rumour, particularly relevant to the Facebook post. |
| Cairns v Modi [2013] 1 WLR 1015 |
Consideration of scale of publication and identification of publishees in assessing harm. |
Used to evaluate the extent and impact of the publications on the Plaintiff’s reputation. |
| Sube v News Group Newspapers [2018] EWHC 1961 (QB), [2018] 1 WLR 5767 |
Requirement to establish serious harm on a publication-by-publication basis. |
Applied to critique the Plaintiff’s failure to address harm caused by each individual statement separately. |
| Hodges v Naish [2021] EWHC 1805 |
Example of serious harm caused by publication of serious allegations to a small number of publishees who knew the claimant. |
Considered as a comparative case; distinguished due to the absence of supporting evidence of harm from publishees in the present case. |
| Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA [2016] EWHC 66 (QB) |
Recognition of difficulties claimants face in securing evidence from publishees who think less well of them. |
Referenced in relation to the Plaintiff’s challenge in obtaining corroborative evidence from identified publishees. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court approached the determination of meaning by adopting an objective, impressionistic test focused on the hypothetical reasonable reader, as guided by recent authorities. It rejected the parties' subjective intentions and emphasized reading the statements in their social media and personal context without over-elaborate textual analysis.
The court found the 22 statements to have a defamatory tendency at common law, given their serious allegations of domestic abuse, business malpractice, and discreditable personal behaviour. The allegations were recognized as seriously contravening important social norms, justifying the defamatory characterization.
Turning to the serious harm requirement under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, the court identified that the Plaintiff bore the burden to prove that each publication caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The court noted the complexity and fact-sensitive nature of this test and the difficulties faced by litigants in person.
The Plaintiff's evidence of serious harm was found insufficient. Specific examples relied on by the Plaintiff, such as his son's loss of employment, impact on business associates, and social cooling at a rugby club, were not supported by independent evidence or were attributable to other causes, including the Defendant's separate conduct or the pandemic.
The court emphasized that serious harm must be causally linked to each individual publication, not to a general course of conduct or other uncomplained publications. The Plaintiff's reliance on a smear campaign theory and cumulative effect was not compatible with the legal requirements.
Regarding the Facebook post, the court accepted it was defamatory but noted the lack of evidence about its wider impact and the absence of direct naming as limiting factors on its causative capacity for serious harm.
The court also considered the polarizing effect of the acrimonious relationship breakdown and found that the Plaintiff's immediate circle was more likely to view him sympathetically, undermining the likelihood of serious reputational harm from the complained-of publications.
Overall, the court concluded that the Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof that any of the publications caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation.
Holding and Implications
The court's final decision was to DISMISS the Plaintiff's defamation claim on the grounds that he did not prove serious harm caused or likely to be caused by any of the complained-of publications.
The direct effect of this decision is that the defamation proceedings end without success for the Plaintiff. The court made no findings on the truth or falsity of the allegations or the conduct of either party, as those issues were outside the scope of the preliminary trial.
The court noted that the Defendant has an unresolved counterclaim for assault, battery, and harassment, which it considered unsuitable for the High Court Media and Communications List and indicated a likely transfer to the County Court for resolution.
No new legal precedent was established by this judgment; rather, it applied existing principles strictly, particularly the requirement for claimants to prove serious reputational harm causally linked to each individual publication in defamation claims.