Islam Expo Ltd v The Spectator (1828) Ltd & Anor

At the preliminary stage of a libel claim, the court asks whether the words are capable of referring to the claimant. The question is governed by reasonableness, and over-elaborate analysis should be avoided. The words must be considered in their context and having regard to the mode of publication. In an internet publication, the court may, for the purpose of the application, assume that linked material forms part of the context without deciding whether that approach is legally correct. A reference to a name used both for an organisation and for events organised by it may be capable of referring to the organisation. A ruling on capability does not determine the meaning ultimately borne by the words at trial.

Islam Expo Ltd brought a libel claim concerning material published on the Spectator website by The Spectator (1828) Ltd and Stephen Pollard. The pleaded meaning alleged that the words identified Islam Expo Ltd as a fascist party dedicated to genocide which organised a conference with a racist and genocidal programme.

The defendants applied for a ruling that the words were incapable of referring to the claimant. The application concerned the effect of four hyperlinks and the extent to which linked material could be treated as part of the context. The central issue was whether the words complained of were capable of referring to the claimant.

1. Application dismissed. The words complained of were capable of referring to Islam Expo Ltd. A tribunal of fact reaching that conclusion could not be characterised as perverse.
2. Under Jeynes v News Magazines Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 130, the governing principle is reasonableness and over-elaborate analysis should be avoided. The hypothetical reader is the person with access to the words complained of.
3. Following Charleston v Newsgroup Newspapers Limited [1985] 2 AC 65, meaning is assessed by considering the words in their context and having regard to the mode of publication. A claimant cannot isolate a passage where other parts of the publication throw a different light on it.
4. For the purposes of the application, the court approached the case on the defendants’ assumption that a reader who clicked a hyperlink would be directed to linked text which could be treated as context. That approach was adopted without ruling whether it was legally correct.
5. The word “IslamExpo” appeared in the relatively short publication and could refer both to the claimant corporation and to the events it organised. The linked material did not plainly resolve the ambiguity in the defendants’ favour. The defendants’ reliance on the claimant’s corporate form involved an extrinsic fact which would have to be pleaded and proved.
6. The ruling concerned only capability of reference. It did not determine the meaning the words actually bore at trial.