High Court Addresses Libel in News Coverage of Law Enforcement Scandals: Sean Price v Newsquest Media Group Limited

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3027 (KB)
Judgment on


The High Court judgment in Sean Price v Newsquest Media Group Limited addresses the critical matter of libel in connection to newspaper publications. Deputy Judge Susie Alegre adeptly manages the preliminary issues of meaning and whether such meaning is defamatory at common law, centering around a former Chief Constable and a regional newspaper’s coverage of law enforcement scandals.

Key Facts

Sean Price, the Claimant, is a former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police dismissed for gross misconduct. The Defendant, Newsquest Media Group Limited, published articles online and in print discussing scandals involving Cleveland Police. The articles mentioned Price, stating his dismissal and alluding to phone monitoring and racism within the force. Price challenged this, claiming libel and implying he was associated with all these issues.

Judge Alegre applied several legal principles to interpret the meaning and defamatory nature of the statements in question adhering to established case law, including:

  • Natural and Ordinary Meaning: Following Millett v Corbyn, the court must deduce the provisional meaning the hypothetical reader would infer, ensuring it is resonant with the average reader’s understanding without undue analysis.

  • Context and Impression: Derived from Koutsogiannis and the “bane and antidote” principle, the articles must be read wholly, avoiding overemphasis on segments that might distort the natural reading.

  • Reasonableness Principle: The intention of the publisher is immaterial; rather, the impression on a reasonable reader, not predisposed to scandal, matters, as discussed in Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd and supported by Brown v Bower.

  • Defamation: A statement is considered defamatory if it adversely affects a person’s reputation, as mentioned in Triplark v Northwood Hall.

  • Costs: The costs incurred due to amendments necessitated by initial pleadings’ deficiencies fall on the claimant. This follows the court guidance for cost allocation in such circumstances.


The judge determined the statements could be reasonably interpreted as implicating Price in the mentioned scandals, conveying a defamatory meaning that could “substantially affect in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards the Claimant”. Consequently, Price’s meaning of the words was upheld in spirit if not in the letter, and considered defamatory at common law.

Concerning the costs, Price was ordered to bear the costs related to the amendment of the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim based on the flaw in the original pleadings. This portrays the significance of precision in libel cases’ initial claims.


The High Court’s judgment enunciates vital principles of libel law and their application to journalism and communication. By scrutinizing the impression created by the articles on reasonable readers, the court underscores the delicate balance media must maintain to avoid defaming individuals when referencing them in broader discussions of scandal or misconduct. Furthermore, the judgment reiterates the significance of thorough preparation and accuracy in initial pleadings to minimize attributable costs. This case will presumably stand as an essential reference in libel actions, particularly concerning the interpretation of media publications’ content and its impacts on individual reputations.

Related Summaries