Murtaza Ali Shah v Mohammad Imran & Ors
[2023] EWHC 120 (KB)
Sana Hameed v Shanzay Shahbaz Sheikh
17 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2845 (KB)
High Court
Someone posted things online accusing another person of running a mean gossip page and being investigated by the police. A judge decided what the posts meant, saying they could be considered libelous, but still needs to decide if the posts were actually about the person making the accusation.
Key Facts
- •Sana Hameed (Claimant) sued Shanaz Shahbaz Sheikh (Defendant) for libel.
- •The libel allegedly stemmed from multiple social media posts and a WhatsApp message.
- •The WhatsApp message included a photo of the Claimant alongside a mocking image, suggesting she was behind a gossip Instagram page.
- •The message also included images of Pakistani court orders related to an investigation into the gossip page.
- •The Defendant denied publishing the WhatsApp message or other posts.
- •The Claimant is a social media blogger with around 22,000 followers, and the Defendant is a social media influencer with 500,000 followers.
- •The case involved multiple publications on Instagram and WhatsApp, all related to allegations of the Claimant's involvement with a defamatory gossip page.
Legal Principles
Determining the single natural and ordinary meaning of words in a publication, considering what a hypothetical reasonable reader would understand.
Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Limited [2019] EWHC 48 (QB); Millett v Corbyn [2021] EWCA Civ 567
Chase levels of defamatory meaning: (1) guilt; (2) reasonable grounds to suspect guilt; (3) grounds for investigation.
Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772
Considerations for social media defamation, including the impact of online sharing and forwarding.
Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17; Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB)
Absolute privilege does not apply to repeating defamatory statements from judicial proceedings in a different context.
Westcott v Westcott [2008] EWCA Civ 818
Outcomes
The court determined the meaning of the WhatsApp message, both alone and with the court orders, finding it defamatory.
The message clearly identified the Claimant as the person behind the gossip page, suggesting reprehensible conduct and stating she was under investigation. The court orders added weight to the allegation of criminal investigation.
The court determined the meaning of the other publications, finding them potentially defamatory if they were understood to refer to the Claimant.
The court determined the meaning of each publication but left the question of whether they referred to the Claimant to be determined at trial.
The Claimant needs permission to amend her claim to include misuse of private information.
The previous order did not grant blanket permission to amend.