Dell'olio v Associated Newspapers Ltd

On a meaning application in a libel claim, the court must decide whether the words are capable of bearing the pleaded meaning or another properly advanced defamatory meaning. Meaning is assessed by the standard of the hypothetical reasonable reader, reading the publication as a whole and avoiding strained or over-elaborate analysis. An unflattering or insulting imputation is not necessarily defamatory. The publication must substantially affect, or tend substantially to affect, other people’s attitudes towards the claimant adversely. The claimant’s pre-action correspondence may assist in identifying the meanings genuinely pursued. References to wealth, lifestyle and financial motivation did not cross the necessary threshold of seriousness.

The claimant, a well-known Italian lawyer, brought a libel claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail over an article concerning her relationship with Sir Trevor Nunn. The article referred to her relationships with wealthy and prominent men, her lifestyle, and the publicity given to the relationship. She pleaded that the words meant that she was, or was reasonably suspected of being, a serial gold-digger who pursued millionaire men for financial rather than genuine emotional reasons.

The defendant applied under CPR PD53 para 4.1(1)–(3) for a ruling that the words were incapable of bearing the pleaded meaning or any other defamatory meaning, and for dismissal of the claim. The central issues were the permissible meanings of the article, the relevance of the claimant’s Letter of Claim, and whether the alleged imputation crossed the threshold of seriousness required for defamation.

1. Application granted and claim dismissed. The words complained of were incapable of bearing the pleaded meaning and any other defamatory meaning of which the claimant might complain.
2. The court applied the established meaning principles summarised in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130. The governing principle was reasonableness. The hypothetical reasonable reader was neither naïve nor unduly suspicious, would read between the lines, and would read the article as a whole. The court had to avoid selecting a bad meaning where a non-defamatory meaning was available and reject meanings obtainable only by strained or forced interpretation. The publisher’s intention was irrelevant.
3. The court also considered the threshold of seriousness described in Thornton v Telegraph Media Group [2010] EMLR 25. The question was whether the words were capable of substantially affecting, or tending substantially to affect, adversely the attitude of other people towards the claimant. The claimant’s public position and existing celebrity were relevant to that assessment.
4. The Letter of Claim was relevant because the court was not required to consider possible meanings in a vacuum. The claimant had later advanced a different meaning in the Particulars of Claim, but had not pursued the obvious possible imputation of adultery. Having had an opportunity to advance another meaning, she could not ordinarily advance one later without a satisfactory explanation.
5. The references to lifestyle, money and wealth were insulting but did not reach the required level of seriousness. It was unnecessary and disproportionate to restrain publication of articles referring to the wealth of the claimant’s associates or her lifestyle in terms suggesting that financial concerns formed a significant part of her motives.

First-instance decision. The judgment records no appeal or earlier decision in the same proceedings.