Murtaza Ali Shah v Mohammad Imran & Ors
[2023] EWHC 120 (KB)
David Paisley v Graham Linehan
1 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 1976 (KB)
High Court
David Paisley sued Graham Linehan for saying mean things about him online. A judge carefully looked at what Linehan wrote and said, deciding if it was true or just an opinion, and if it would hurt Paisley's reputation. The judge decided Linehan's words were harmful and untrue in parts, making them libelous.
Key Facts
- •David Paisley (Claimant), a former actor and activist, sued Graham Linehan (Defendant), a television writer, for libel and other torts.
- •The suit concerned seven publications on Linehan's Substack, including articles and reader comments.
- •The publications focused on Paisley's activism and his methods, particularly regarding gender-critical views.
- •The preliminary issues addressed meaning, defamatory nature, and fact/opinion distinction of the statements.
Legal Principles
Determining the single, natural and ordinary meaning of statements, considering reasonableness, context, and the hypothetical reasonable reader.
Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB); Millet v Corbyn [2021] EMLR 19; Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65; Stocker v Stocker [2020] AC 593; Riley v Murray [2020] EMLR 20; Sharif v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 343 (QB); Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 971; Swan v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 1312 (QB); Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EMLR 20
Distinguishing factual allegations from opinion, considering the reasonable reader's interpretation and context.
Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB); Blake v Fox [2023] EMLR 12; Alam v Guardian News and Media Ltd [2023] EWHC 2847 (KB)
A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the claimant's reputation and adversely affect how people treat them.
Millett v Corbyn [2021] EMLR 19
Vulgar abuse, in the context of online communications, may not be defamatory if the reasonable reader would not take it seriously.
Smith v ADVFN Plc [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB); Blake v Fox [2023] EMLR 12
Outcomes
The court determined the meaning of statements in each publication.
The court applied the principles of libel law, considering the context, reasonable reader, and distinction between fact and opinion.
All publications were found to be defamatory of the Claimant at common law.
The meanings assigned to the statements, even those partially based on opinion, were deemed to have lowered the Claimant's reputation and would adversely affect how people would treat him.