McKenna v MGN Ltd

In a defamation claim, the court must identify the single meaning conveyed by the words in their full context. A defamatory allegation is not substantially true merely because some underlying criticism is justified. Where the sting alleges dishonesty, the defendant must prove that allegation in substance. Academic weakness, lack of accreditation, inadequate supervision or an unusual qualification process does not, without more, establish that the claimant knowingly relied on a bogus qualification. The court may exclude a distinct and severable allegation from the meaning inquiry, although injury caused by that allegation cannot be compensated in the claim.

Paul McKenna, a hypnotherapist, sued MGN Ltd over an article in the Daily Mirror. The article alleged that he publicly presented himself as holding a genuine PhD while knowing that the degree awarded by La Salle University in Louisiana was bogus. The defendant relied on justification, contending that the degree had effectively been obtained merely for money and that Mr McKenna had acted dishonestly.

The trial concerned the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, whether the defamatory sting was substantially true, and damages. The court also considered whether separate criticism of Mr McKenna’s stage performances formed part of the actionable meaning.

1. Meaning. Applying the approach in Skuse v Granada Television [1996] EMLR 278 and Gillick v BBC [1996] EMLR 267, the article meant that Mr McKenna publicly presented himself as having a genuine PhD while knowing that it was bogus. The court upheld the pleaded meaning.
2. The allegation that Mr McKenna subjected members of his audience to distasteful and humiliating acts was distinct and severable. Following Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000, it was excluded from the present inquiry. Any reputational injury caused by that separate allegation could not be compensated in this claim.
3. Justification. The defendant bore the burden of proving the defamatory sting substantially true. It failed to prove that Mr McKenna knew his degree was bogus or that it was obtained merely, or in effect merely, for money. The evidence showed that La Salle used credentialization and curriculum requirements, and that at least some work was submitted and assessed. Deficiencies in supervision and academic rigour did not by themselves prove dishonesty.
4. The court found that Mr McKenna genuinely valued the degree and did not intend to deceive others by referring to it. Although his descriptions of the process had caused confusion and were in some respects inaccurate, that did not establish the pleaded dishonest meaning.
5. Judgment was therefore given for Mr McKenna on liability. The assessment of damages was adjourned because allegations of malice, vicarious liability and conspiracy required further consideration.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.