Ann-Marie Janice Smith & Anor. v Pastor John Charles Surridge & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 351 (KB)
Ian Fry v Yasmin Agilah-Hood
8 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 527 (KB)
High Court
A teacher was accused of past sexual misconduct in an email sent to his new employer. A judge agreed the email was damaging to his reputation because it suggested he was guilty of wrongdoing and unsafe to work with. Even though the email writer didn't directly say he committed a crime, the judge found the implications were libelous.
Key Facts
- •Ian Fry (Claimant) sued Yasmin Agilah-Hood (Defendant) for libel.
- •The Defendant sent an email to the Claimant's new employer alleging previous sexual misconduct.
- •The email referenced the Sarah Everard murder to highlight the importance of protecting women.
- •Preliminary issues trial focused on meaning, innuendo, fact vs. opinion, and defamatory nature of statements.
- •Both parties represented themselves at trial.
Legal Principles
Determining the natural and ordinary meaning of defamatory statements.
Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB)
The concept of innuendo meaning in libel.
Gatley on Libel and Slander (Thirteenth Edition)
Distinguishing between statements of fact and opinion in defamation.
Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB) and Blake and others v Fox [2023] EWCA Civ 1000
The test for determining whether a statement is defamatory.
Gatley on Libel and Slander and Blake v Fox
Chase Levels of Defamatory Allegation
Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003] EMLR 11
Outcomes
The court found the email's natural and ordinary meaning to be defamatory.
The email implied the Claimant was guilty of sexual misconduct, posed a risk to women, and was unfit to be a teacher.
The court rejected the innuendo meaning that the Claimant was a violent sexual offender.
The reference to Sarah Everard's murder was to emphasize the need for women's protection, not to directly compare the Claimant to her murderer.
Some statements in the email were deemed statements of fact, while others were expressions of opinion.
Statements regarding the Claimant's 'gardening leave' and common practices in private schools were considered factual imputations. Other statements expressing concern and the Defendant's belief about risk were considered opinion.
All statements, in their various meanings, were found to be defamatory.
The statements attributed behaviour and views contrary to societal norms and would tend to have a substantially adverse effect on how people would treat the Claimant.