Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd

In a libel claim concerning a long newspaper article, meaning is determined by the hypothetical reasonable reader considering the publication as a whole. Where an article conveys both a specific allegation and a broader allegation about the claimant’s conduct, the broader allegation may be proved by evidence of substantially similar conduct.

The defence of truth succeeds where the defendant proves the substantial truth of the defamatory sting, even though some details are inaccurate. The court must assess the gravity and relative significance of the inaccuracies, allowing for permissible exaggeration. In this case, the claimant’s conduct concerning a private trip and hospitality substantially justified the meaning conveyed by the article, despite inaccuracies concerning the dinner and the alleged aluminium-tariff discussions.

The claimant sued the defendant newspaper publisher for libel over an article concerning his relationship with a Russian businessman and his role in arranging travel involving a prominent European Commissioner. The article alleged that the claimant had facilitated the Commissioner’s attendance at a Moscow business dinner connected with an aluminium transaction and had thereby exposed him to accusations of conflict of interest.

The defendant admitted substantial inaccuracies in its original case but amended its defence. It relied on the claimant’s conduct in arranging a dinner with a Russian minister, hospitality in Siberia, and the Commissioner’s presence during a business-related trip and visit to an aluminium plant. The central issues were the meaning of the article and whether its defamatory meaning was substantially true.

1. Meaning. The court applied the approach stated in Slim v Daily Telegraph [1968] 2 QB 157 and Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130. The article conveyed that the claimant had arranged the Commissioner’s attendance and travel in circumstances foreseeably exposing the Commissioner’s office and integrity to disrepute and creating reasonable grounds to suspect improper discussions about aluminium tariffs. It also conveyed a general allegation that the incident exemplified the claimant’s efforts to impress and remain close to the Russian businessman.
2. Substantial truth. The court applied the principles stated in Sutherland v Stopes [1925] AC 47, Maisel v Financial Times Ltd (1915) 84 LJKB 2145 and Turcu v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2005] EWHC 799 (QB). The defendant did not need to prove every detail. The question was whether the substance or sting of the defamatory meaning was proved, having regard to the overall gravity and significance of the inaccuracies.
3. The court rejected the submission that evidence concerning the Siberian trip could not justify allegations concerning the Moscow dinner. Applying Carlton Communications v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EMLR 16; [2001] EWCA Civ 1644, it held that the article included a general allegation capable of being supported by similar conduct.
4. The court found that the claimant arranged the Commissioner’s meeting with a Russian minister, facilitated his travel and hospitality, and invited him on a business-related trip involving a visit to an aluminium smelter and foil plant. That conduct foreseeably exposed the Commissioner to accusations of conflict of interest and gave reasonable grounds to suspect improper discussions about aluminium, although the court did not find discussions about aluminium tariffs or corruption.
5. The words complained of were therefore substantially true notwithstanding the admitted inaccuracies. Judgment was entered for the defendant. In the alternative, damages would have been modest, estimated at about £3,000.