Andrew Bridgen MP v Matthew Hancock MP
[2024] EWHC 623 (KB)
Richard (Raziel) Davidoff & Ors v Nicholas Hargrave
21 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1825 (KB)
High Court
Four people sued someone for saying bad things about their business online. The court said the people suing didn't clearly explain why the online comments were about them, but they were allowed to try again and fix their arguments.
Key Facts
- •Four claimants (family members running ABC Estates) brought defamation proceedings against the defendant (political consultant and Leasehold Knowledge contributor) for two publications: a quote-tweet (7 May 2022 Tweet) and a comment below a Negotiator article (11 May 2022 Post).
- •The 7 May 2022 Tweet quote-tweeted an article linking to a Leasehold Knowledge article naming the claimants, alleging they engaged in unethical practices.
- •The 11 May 2022 Post commented on a Negotiator article about the claimants' libel case, implying questionable practices.
- •The defendant applied to strike out the claimants' innuendo arguments and for a determination of preliminary issues (reference, meaning, defamatory nature, fact vs. opinion).
Legal Principles
Words must refer to the claimant to be actionable in defamation. Reference can be intrinsic (within the words) or extrinsic (innuendo, requiring proof of facts known to the reader).
Dyson v Channel Four Television Corpn [2022] EWHC 2718 (KB)
In determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words, no evidence beyond the publication is admissible. The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naive but not unduly suspicious.
Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB)
To plead a legal innuendo, the claimant must specify the persons to whom the words were published and the special circumstances known to them. There are limited exceptions, such as widely known facts in a national newspaper's readership.
Fullam v Newcastle Chronicle and Journal Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 651
A court may strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim or is an abuse of process.
CPR 3.4(2)
Outcomes
The court ruled that evidence of the defendant's Twitter followers is inadmissible to determine whether a reasonable reader would click a hyperlink.
The court followed established principles that only the publication itself is relevant in determining meaning; the characteristics of the readership are considered objectively.
The claimants' innuendo arguments were deemed defectively pleaded for both publications.
The claimants failed to adequately plead the specific facts known to readers that would allow them to understand the words as referring to the claimants. They didn't identify specific readers or provide sufficient evidence to support an inference.
The court allowed the claimants to amend their pleadings to correct the deficiencies in their innuendo arguments.
The court considered the defects remediable and striking out the claim too harsh, weighing this against the claimants' delay in addressing the issues.