David Paisley v Graham Linehan
[2024] EWHC 1976 (KB)
Murtaza Ali Shah v Mohammad Imran & Ors
26 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 120 (KB)
High Court
A journalist sued some people for saying bad things about him online. A judge carefully read everything they said and decided most of it was defamatory – meaning it hurt his reputation. Even though some comments were opinions, they were still considered so mean and damaging that they counted as defamation.
Key Facts
- •Murtaza Ali Shah (Claimant), a Pakistani journalist, sued three defendants (political activists and PTI members) for defamation.
- •The defamation arose from six publications: a petition, two videos by the first defendant, two tweets by the second defendant, and a video by the third defendant.
- •The publications were in English and Urdu; the court considered English translations of the Urdu publications.
- •The trial focused on three preliminary issues: meaning of publications, whether statements were fact or opinion, and whether they were defamatory.
- •Defendants appeared in person; the Claimant was represented by counsel.
- •The court applied established principles of defamation law, considering the hypothetical reasonable reader and the 'repetition rule'.
Legal Principles
Ascertainment of meaning in defamation claims focuses on the single natural and ordinary meaning to a hypothetical reasonable reader.
Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB)
In determining whether words are fact or opinion, the court considers how the words would strike the ordinary reasonable reader; context is crucial.
Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB)
A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the claimant's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people and has a substantially adverse effect on how people treat the claimant.
Millett v Corbyn [2021] EWCA Civ 567
Where an allegation by a third party is repeated, the words must be interpreted by reference to the underlying allegations of fact; context remains critical.
Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB)
Political speech doesn't require special rules but the context impacts the approach to meaning; over-analysis should be avoided.
Ware v French [2021] EWHC 384 (QB)
Outcomes
The court determined the meaning of each publication, classifying parts as statements of fact or opinion.
The court analyzed each publication considering the words used, the context, and the hypothetical reasonable reader's understanding.
Most statements were found to be defamatory, even those deemed statements of opinion.
The court reasoned that the allegations, even when presented as opinions, were serious enough to meet the threshold for defamation; they damaged the Claimant's reputation as a journalist.