Carlton Communications Plc & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd

In determining the meaning of defamatory words, the court must consider the whole publication and the impression it would make on an ordinary reasonable reader. A claimant who complains of part of a publication may thereby expose the publication’s wider context. Where separate allegations have a common sting, the defendant may rely on the truth of both in justification, even if the claimant complained of only one. The court may restrict issues for case-management reasons, but should not exclude a legally permissible justification where the additional issue is proportionate to try and exclusion would cause unfairness.

The claimants sued for libel over articles alleging that programmes in the Roger Cook series were fake. The defendants sought to justify a wider meaning that the claimants were responsible for more than one fake programme, relying also on the admitted fakery of The Connection. Eady J ruled that the words were incapable of bearing that extended meaning and struck out the relevant meaning and particulars of justification. He also considered that the issue should be excluded as a matter of case management. The claimants appealed.

1. Appeal allowed. The words complained of, read in the context of the publications as a whole, were capable of bearing the extended meaning that the claimants were responsible for more than one fake programme or series of programmes.
2. The court must distinguish between the meaning of the words complained of and the scope of the substantive defence. The whole publication may be considered when determining meaning. It may also provide material for justification where two defamatory allegations have a common sting.
3. Under the principles stated in Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000, whether allegations are separate and distinct is a question of fact and degree. A defendant is not confined to proving a wholly general charge. Allegations concerning the Cook programmes and The Connection could together constitute one allegation that the claimants had caused or permitted a culture of fakery.
4. The authorities concerning distinct stings, including United States Tobacco International Inc v British Broadcasting Corporation [1998] EMLR 816 and Cruise v Express Newspapers plc [1999] QB 931, did not govern this case. Their additional issues were far-reaching and contentious, whereas the underlying facts here were likely to be substantially undisputed.
5. Although the court had power under CPR Part 3.1(2)(k) to exclude an issue in furtherance of the overriding objective, exclusion would unfairly prevent the defendants from advancing a permissible meaning and justification. The case was remitted to Eady J for any application to re-amend the defence. The appeal was allowed with costs, subject to detailed assessment; costs below were referred to the judge; and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from an interlocutory decision of Eady J in the Queen’s Bench Division. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the restriction on the pleaded meaning and justification, and referred any re-amendment application to the judge.