Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd

On a meaning application in libel, a pleaded meaning should be rejected summarily only where a jury would be perverse to uphold it. The exercise should be approached generously. Whether words convey a defamatory meaning depends on the particular wording and the relationship and status of the people involved. A recipient of alleged favours may be defamed even without an allegation that he actively sought or obtained them, where the words are capable of conveying willing participation in cronyism or comparable conduct. Meanings alleging criminal corruption or knowing incompetence require sufficient support in the publication itself.

The claimant brought a libel action concerning a Daily Mail article about a contract under which his company advised the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on communications and image. He pleaded that the article meant that he had corruptly exploited a long-standing friendship to obtain an improper payment and that he knowingly obtained payment for work his company was not competent to perform.

The defendant submitted that the article was incapable of bearing either meaning and sought to strike out the claim. The central issue was whether the pleaded meanings fell outside the range of meanings which a jury could reasonably find in the words.

1. Approach to meaning. A judge may rule out a pleaded meaning and bring the matter to an end summarily where it falls outside the permissible range. The exercise is one of “pre-empting perversity”: a meaning should be rejected only if a jury would be perverse to uphold it. The approach should be generous rather than parsimonious (Jameel v Wall Street Journal [2004] EMLR 6; Berezovsky v Forbes [2001] EMLR 45 at [16]).
2. The assessment must focus on the particular facts. Whether an article defames a person portrayed as receiving favours depends on the wording, the parties’ relative status, and the nature of their relationship. A reasonable reader could infer willing participation in cronyism or “back-scratching” from a publication describing long-standing close friends, repeated business dealings, and arrangements lacking arm’s-length transparency, even without an allegation that the claimant initiated the arrangements.
3. The first pleaded meaning was struck out because its “Chase level one” allegation of corruption, corresponding to guilt of criminal behaviour, put the matter far too high. The article was nevertheless capable of conveying a meaning reflecting adversely on the claimant’s character or integrity.
4. The second pleaded meaning was also struck out. The article did not convey that the claimant knew his company lacked relevant knowledge or experience, or that he consciously obtained payment for work he knew it was incompetent to perform. Criticism that money was wasted did not necessarily impute dishonesty.
5. The action as a whole was not struck out. The surviving issue was left for determination by a jury.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.