Beach Developments Ltd v Foskett

In libel, a publication may contain several imputations, but each imputation must be assigned one single meaning. The court must identify the pleaded meaning before determining the available defences. Where words allege actual dishonesty, they bear a Chase Level 1 meaning rather than a lesser suspicion-based meaning. Particulars directed solely to meanings which the words do not bear should be removed. Under the overriding objective, the court should not permit disproportionate issues to be litigated, especially where the financial value of a company’s claim is limited and damages cannot compensate injury to feelings.

The claimant building contractor brought a libel action against the defendant, arising from publications on a local internet forum and Windows Live sites after a settled building-contract dispute. The claimant alleged meanings of dishonesty and unpleasantness. The defendant denied defamatory meaning and pleaded alternative Chase Level 2 or 3 meanings, justification, honest comment and Reynolds privilege.

At a pre-trial review, the court had determined the meanings of the publications and declined to strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process. The remaining issue was the appropriate costs order, including the effect of the meanings that the court had rejected.

1. Meaning and imputations. A publication may contain more than one imputation, although the court must determine a single meaning for each imputation. The allegations of dishonesty and unpleasantness were analytically distinct, but the pleaded claim pursued only the dishonesty allegation. “Crooked cowboy builder” expressed the dishonesty imputation and did not constitute a separate imputation.
2. Chase levels. The local-forum publication and two Windows Live publications alleged actual guilt of dishonesty, namely Chase Level 1 meaning. They did not bear the lesser Chase Level 2 or 3 meanings advanced in the defence. The remaining Windows Live publication conveyed overcharging and unpleasantness, but not dishonesty. The position concerning its accessibility remained for trial.
3. Proportionality. If the unpleasantness allegation had been pursued as a separate imputation, the time and cost of litigating it would have been disproportionate to any benefit. The claimant was a company, so damages could not include injury to feelings. The court also noted that a Jameel abuse argument might arise, but did not base the costs order on that unargued issue.
4. Costs. Particulars of justification relevant only to the rejected Chase Level 2 or 3 meanings were to be struck out. The defendant could not recover costs incurred in pleading those matters. The claimant’s costs relating solely to those meanings were reserved. Costs concerning the abandoned Reynolds defence and unrelated allegations of personal misconduct lay where they had fallen. The costs of the pre-trial review hearing were costs in the case.

First-instance costs judgment following a pre-trial review. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.