Wright v Gregson & Ors

On an application to determine meaning in a libel claim, the court must read the words complained of in their full publication context, while excluding unrelated publications from the context. A headline and introductory passage may convey a defamatory meaning even where the article identifies another organisation as primarily responsible. At this stage, the court must decide whether a jury could reasonably find the pleaded meaning; it must not withdraw the issue unless a jury would be perverse to do so. A defendant shown not to have been legally responsible for publication should be removed. Exemplary damages require pleaded facts capable of showing a financially motivated calculation that publication would yield more than any resulting damages.

The claimant brought libel proceedings concerning four articles and an editorial published by the Express and Echo. The defendants applied under CPR 53 PD4 for a ruling that the words complained of were incapable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meanings, with a view to striking out the claim or obtaining summary judgment. The fourth defendant also sought removal on the basis that it was not legally responsible for publication. The claimant additionally pleaded exemplary damages.

The central issues were the meanings reasonably conveyed by the publications, the proper approach to context at the meaning stage, responsibility for publication, and whether the pleading disclosed a proper basis for exemplary damages.

1. First and second articles. The words had to be read as part of the articles as a whole. Although the headlines could suggest that charitable funds were to be used for the claimant’s personal benefit if read in isolation, the articles explained that the property would operate as a retreat for sick children and that the claimant would pay rent to the organisation. The words were therefore incapable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged in relation to those articles.
2. Third article. The headline, photograph and introductory paragraph placed the claimant at the centre of the alleged charity dispute. The references to fundraisers working “under” him could convey responsibility for their conduct. The article presented the carrying out of unlicensed street collections as an established matter which the newspaper could reveal, rather than merely as an investigation. It could therefore bear the pleaded defamatory meaning, and it was not appropriate to withdraw the issue from a jury.
3. Editorial. The editorial had to be read with the article on which it was based and with its earlier references to the claimant. The contrast between organisations described as genuine, caring, honest and dedicated and KICT was capable of conveying that the claimant, and those associated with KICT, were purporting to be something they were not. The reference to his altruistic efforts could be understood ironically. The fourth article was therefore also capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meaning.
4. Earlier or later publications were excluded from the context because they were not complained of in these proceedings. The Fourth Defendant was removed because the evidence showed that it had no responsibility in law for publication. The claim for exemplary damages was unsupported: the pleading disclosed no facts capable of establishing that publication was calculated to produce a gain exceeding the damages payable for libel.