Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd

In defamation proceedings, the meaning of published words is assessed by the ordinary fair-minded reader. A defendant may nevertheless seek clarification of factual issues relevant to a justification defence, even where those issues arise after the question of meaning has been determined. Such clarification does not require the claimant to concede the defendant’s pleaded meaning. Further information should be provided constructively where it will identify the real dispute, narrow the issues for trial and assist the parties in assessing the need for evidence.

Robert Dee brought a defamation claim against Telegraph Media Group Ltd concerning an article describing him as the world’s worst professional tennis player and referring to a run of 54 consecutive defeats.

The defendant sought further information about whether the defeats occurred on the international professional circuit, the world circuit or the circuit, and whether Spanish tournaments were excluded from those descriptions. The claimant resisted the request on pleading and meaning grounds. The issue was whether the requested answers would improperly require debate about meaning or would instead clarify the factual dispute relevant to justification.

1. Application granted. The claimant was directed to answer the two requests for further information constructively, rather than merely by non-admission.
2. The words complained of were to be given the meaning attributed to them by the ordinary fair-minded reader of the article or articles relied upon. The meaning issue had already been pleaded and was for the judge or jury.
3. The defendant’s request did not seek to reopen or determine meaning. It sought to identify the factual dispute that would remain if the defendant succeeded on meaning, namely whether the Spanish matches formed part of the relevant professional circuit.
4. The factual question could be material to justification because the defendant contended that matches outside the relevant ranking circuit should be disregarded when assessing the article’s central message. It might also require evidence concerning the common usage of the relevant tennis terms.
5. Further information was appropriate where the claimant could provide it and where it would place the parties’ positions clearly before the court, narrow the issues and avoid unnecessary expenditure. The claimant’s answers would not amount to an admission of the defendant’s case on meaning.