Court Rejects Defamation Claim in Hinds v British Boxing Board Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 380 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the High Court of Justice case regarding Jeffrey John Hinds v British Boxing Board of Control Limited, Mr. Justice Kerr presides over a defamation claim concerning the publication of a statement on the defendant’s website. The key legal principles revolve around the ordinary reasonable reader test for defamatory meaning, the impressionistic assessment of a publication’s readership, and the distinction between defamatory and non-defamatory meanings of statements. This case also illustrates the court’s approach to preliminary issues and admissible context in defamation claims.

Key Facts

Jeffrey John Hinds, a professional boxing referee, claimed damages for libel arising from a notice posted by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC) indicating he was given “Words of Advice for the future.” Hinds contends this statement suggests he engaged in wrongdoing or misconduct. However, no contesting evidence was heard, and the preliminary issue trial revolved around determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the statement and its defamatory potential. Both parties agreed the statement was a statement of fact, but they disagreed on whether it conveyed that Hinds committed misconduct.

The legal principles invoked include:

  1. At common law, a statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people, as established in Corbyn v. Millett and Monroe v. Hopkins.
  2. The reasonable reader test is outlined in Koutsogiannis v. Random House Group Ltd and endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Corbyn v. Millett. A hypothetical reasonable reader is neither naïve nor overly suspicious. The reader can infer meanings without resorting to strained or unreasonable interpretations and must not select a defamatory meaning if a non-defamatory one is viable.
  3. The publication must be read as a whole, considering any ‘bane and antidote’ alongside the statement itself. However, context does not include extrinsic evidence unknown to all potential readers. This principle is further supported by Riley v. Murray.
  4. Where a single publication is relied upon, and no innuendo or multiple meanings are suggested, the context refers to what could reasonably be expected to be known by all publishees, as explicated in Riley v. Murray.

Outcomes

Applying the above principles, Mr. Justice Kerr rejected the claimant’s interpretation that the statement carried a defamatory meaning. The court found that an ordinary reasonable reader, informed by the admissible context of other notices on the website, would not infer guilt or wrongdoing from the BBBC’s use of “Words of Advice for the future” in Hinds’ case, particularly as other individuals with notices on the website were explicitly stated to have engaged in misconduct and punished accordingly.

Hinds’ case, however, did not mention any such finding of guilt or punishment, but rather the provision of advice, signaling a significant distinction between him and those who were punished. Therefore, the statement was not defamatory at common law and did not lower Hinds in the estimation of right-thinking people based on the admissible context.

Conclusion

In Hinds v British Boxing Board of Control Limited, the court delineates a clear approach to determining whether a statement carries a defamatory meaning. It emphasizes the importance of the ordinary reasonable reader’s perspective, which includes an assessment of context but only to the extent that such context would be known to all readers. In effect, the ruling showcases the balance between protecting an individual’s reputation and ensuring that statements are taken in their proper context without resorting to implications of misconduct not warranted by the available evidence.

Related Summaries