Monks v Warwick District Council

In a libel claim concerning an email and its republication in a newspaper article, defamatory words must be read in their full context. A claimant cannot select extracts from an article to give them a meaning which the article as a whole cannot reasonably bear.

A plea of malice requires particularised facts identifying the individual responsible for publication and showing the necessary state of mind. A claimant cannot proceed speculatively in the hope that evidence will emerge at trial. Where the evidence could not permit a properly directed jury to find a probability of malice, the claim may be summarily determined.

Loss of business must be causally connected to the actionable publication. Exemplary damages in libel require evidence satisfying a recognised category.

The Claimant, a chartered surveyor, sued the Defendant local authority for libel over an email sent to a local journalist after his acquittal on a listed-buildings prosecution. Parts of the email were reproduced in a newspaper article.

The Claimant alleged that the publications conveyed that, despite his acquittal, he was guilty of the criminal offence. He also claimed aggravated damages and damages for loss of custom and business. The Defendant applied to strike out the claim concerning the article, the plea of malice and the business-loss claim, and sought summary judgment where appropriate. The Claimant applied to amend to claim special and exemplary damages.

The central issues were whether the article could bear the pleaded meaning, whether malice had been properly pleaded and supported, whether business loss was legally recoverable on the pleaded publication, and whether the proposed additional claims had a real prospect of success.

1. Article claim. The claim based on the newspaper article was struck out. Under the principle in Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65, words complained of must be read in their context. The Claimant could not rely on extracts from the article while accepting that the article as a whole conveyed a different meaning. Read as a whole, the article, including the reference to the acquittal and the Claimant’s own comments, was incapable of bearing the meaning that he was guilty or that the jury had wrongly acquitted him.
2. Malice. The plea of malice was struck out. A claimant alleging malice must plead particularised facts from which malice may be inferred. In a claim against a corporation, the pleading must identify the individual responsible for the publication and show that individual’s relevant state of mind. The Claimant had not linked most of the named officers to publication of the email and had not pleaded proper particulars of their knowledge or intention. The principles in Seray-Wurie v Charity Commission [2008] EWHC 870, Webster v British Gas Services Ltd [2003] EWHC 1188 and Bray v Deutsche Bank [2008] EWHC 1263 were applied.
3. The evidence did not establish an arguable case against the relevant officers. At most, the evidence concerning the author of the email showed carelessness. Following Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (no 3) [2003] 2 AC 1, dishonesty could not be inferred from evidence equally consistent with negligence. There was no evidence on which a properly directed jury could find a probability of malice.
4. Loss and amendments. The claim for general loss of custom and business was struck out because it depended on the article claim and could not result from publication of the email to one person. The proposed special-damages claim was inadequately formulated and suffered the same defects. Permission to amend to claim exemplary damages was refused. Applying Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 and Shendish Manor Ltd v Coleman [2001] EWCA 913, there was no evidence of conduct falling within a recognised category or of the necessary calculation of profit.