Miqdaad Versi v Mohamed Husain (aka Ed Husain)
[2023] EWHC 482 (KB)
Simon Blake & Ors v Laurence Fox
25 August 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1000
Court of Appeal
People on Twitter called each other names. A court decided some were opinions, others were accusations (except one, which was just sarcastic). The court didn't define what 'racist' meant because it wasn't necessary.
Key Facts
- •Three individuals (Claimants) tweeted about the Defendant, Laurence Fox, using the word "racist."
- •Fox responded with tweets calling each Claimant a "paedophile."
- •Claimants sued for libel; Fox counterclaimed.
- •A trial of preliminary issues was held before Nicklin J.
- •The appeal concerns the meaning of the tweets (fact or opinion), and whether they were defamatory.
Legal Principles
Determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words in a defamation claim.
Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB), Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17, Millett v Corbyn [2021] EWCA Civ 567
Distinguishing between statements of fact and opinion in defamation claims; the 'honest opinion' defence under Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Defamation Act 2013, Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd, Millett v Corbyn, Telnikoff v Matusevich [1992] AC 343, Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53, Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 933, Triplark Ltd v Northwood Hall (Freehold) Ltd [2019] EWHC 3494 (QB)
Common law definition of defamatory statements.
Millett v Corbyn
"Mere vulgar abuse" is not actionable in defamation.
Gatley on Libel and Slander 13th ed at para 3-037
Outcomes
Claimants' tweets calling Fox "racist" were statements of opinion.
The word "racist" tends to be used evaluatively; the context (quote-tweeting Fox's tweet) indicated opinion.
Fox's tweets calling Claimants "paedophile" were statements of fact, except for the tweet responding to Ms. Thorp.
The tweets were short, direct assertions; the context did not clearly indicate rhetoric.
Fox's appeal regarding his tweet responding to Ms Thorp was allowed.
The court found the tweet was sarcastic mimicry and not a literal accusation of being a paedophile. The ordinary reader would understand the rhetorical context.
The judge's decision not to define "racist" was upheld.
The judge accepted both parties' primary case that no definition was needed; defining the term was not necessary to determine the natural and ordinary meaning.