Ian Fry v Yasmin Agilah-Hood
[2024] EWHC 527 (KB)
Unity Plus Healthcare Limited v Peter Gareth Clay & Ors
24 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1278 (KB)
High Court
A former employee emailed HMRC accusing his old company of fraud. A judge decided the email made serious factual claims, not just opinions, and therefore damaged the company's reputation (defamation).
Key Facts
- •Defamation claim against former employee (Peter Clay) and his company (Tao Staffing Solutions Ltd) by Unity Plus Healthcare Ltd.
- •Email sent by the first defendant to HMRC alleging various financial wrongdoings by the claimant.
- •Email also forwarded to a claimant's customer.
- •Defendants relied on the defense of common law qualified privilege.
- •Preliminary issues trial focused on meaning, factual vs. opinion, and defamatory nature of the email.
- •Disagreement on the relevance of 27 email attachments in determining the meaning of the email.
Legal Principles
Determining the single natural and ordinary meaning of words - the meaning a reasonable reader would understand.
Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362
Principles for determining meaning in defamation cases (reasonableness, intention of publisher, hypothetical reasonable reader, avoiding over-elaborate analysis, etc.).
Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB)
Material considered as context when assessing meaning: common knowledge, part of publication, directly available context.
Riley v Murray [2020] EWHC 977 (QB)
Treatment of hyperlinks as context in determining meaning.
Falter v Altzmon [2018] EWHC 1728
Chase levels of meaning in defamation (guilty, reasonable grounds to suspect, grounds to investigate).
Brown v Bower and another [2017] EWHC 2637 (QB)
Distinguishing between statements of fact and opinion in defamation.
Koutsogiannis at [16], Corbyn v Millett [2021] EWCA Civ 567
Bare statement of inference without facts may be treated as fact.
Triplark v Northwood Hall [2019] EWHC 3494 (QB)
Outcomes
The natural and ordinary meaning of the email was that there were strong grounds to suspect the claimant of various financial wrongdoings.
The court considered the email's context, the reasonable reader's understanding, and the language used. The attachments were not considered part of the email for the purpose of determining meaning.
The email contained statements of fact, except for the opinion that the claimant took advantage of its staff.
The court found the allegations of financial wrongdoings were presented as facts, despite some qualifying words like 'I believe'. The context of reporting potential crimes to authorities is key.
The natural and ordinary meaning is defamatory of the claimant.
The allegations were serious and included unlawful activities.