Lait MP v Evening Standard Ltd.

On a meaning application in defamation, the court must assess the words as an ordinary reader would understand them in context. Words may bear a defamatory meaning without conveying illegality, tax evasion, dishonesty or breach of a specific duty. A pleading is over-extended where it attributes meanings which the words are incapable of bearing. A plea of aggravated damages concerns the defendant’s conduct which worsens the effect of publication; it should not introduce a separate defamatory meaning or rely on post-publication events to create one.

The claimant, a Member of Parliament, sued over an article stating that she had been forced to repay nearly £25,000 after making a capital gain on the sale of a taxpayer-funded home. The article was factually wrong, and the defendant published a correction.

The defendant applied to challenge the meanings pleaded and to strike out parts of the claim. The central issues were whether the words were capable of bearing any defamatory meaning, whether the pleaded meanings went beyond the words, and whether additional meanings could properly be pleaded in aggravation of damages.

1. Meaning of the article. The words were capable of bearing one or more defamatory meanings, although the article’s overall message was unclear and confusing. In context, the words “forced” and “emerged” could suggest that the claimant had benefited from the expenses system, had a moral obligation to repay money, had initially been reluctant to do so, or had acted underhandedly. The reasonable reader might think worse of her even if the conduct described had been lawful under the rules then operating.
2. The words did not convey tax evasion, other unlawful conduct, a specific duty to account, breach of such a duty, deception, or an order by the Parliamentary Fees Office. The pleaded meaning alleging deliberate failure to account, deception and such an order was therefore incapable of being borne and was over-pleaded.
3. The suggested meaning that the article questioned the genuineness of the claimant’s opposition to reform, amounting to hypocrisy, was capable of being argued at trial. If retained, it should be pleaded as part of the conventional defamatory meaning rather than separately under aggravation of damages.
4. A plea of aggravated damages should address conduct by the defendant at or after publication which worsened the situation caused by publication. It should not introduce a different defamatory meaning. The allegation of tax avoidance, excessive expenses, dishonest “flipping”, or conversion of a second home into a principal residence was incapable of being borne by the words and was not saved by being pleaded under another heading.
5. Subsequent publicity could be relevant to damages if it increased the claimant’s anxiety or loss, but it could not create an additional meaning or support an allegation that readers might infer later criminal charges. The claimant was given a further opportunity to plead one or more defamatory meanings, subject to these principles.