Church v MGN Ltd (Rev 1)

On an application for a ruling on meaning under Practice Direction 53 para 4.1, the court applies a high threshold before holding that words are incapable of bearing a pleaded defamatory meaning. Meaning depends on the words read as a whole and in context, including the publication and its readership. The court must consider any other defamatory meaning which the words may bear. An oral hearing in public is the normal course. Determination without a hearing under CPR Part 23.8(c) is an exception and is appropriate only in a very limited number of cases, subject to open justice.

The claimant brought a libel action after the defendant published an article attributing to her a drunken public marriage proposal which, the defendant accepted, was false. The defendant applied for a ruling that the words were incapable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meaning and for the application to be decided without an oral hearing under CPR Part 23.8(c).

The court ruled that the words were capable of bearing the pleaded meaning and were capable of defaming the claimant. It then considered whether applications of this kind should ordinarily be determined on paper, together with open justice and costs.

1. Meaning and defamatory capacity. Applying the principles summarised in Jeynes v News Magazines Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 130, the court must assess the reasonable meaning of the words as a whole and in context. The hypothetical reasonable reader is neither naïve nor unduly suspicious, and strained or forced meanings must be excluded. The publisher’s intention is irrelevant. The court must also consider whether the words are capable of bearing any other defamatory meaning under Practice Direction 53 para 4.1.
2. The alleged conduct was capable of being defamatory in context. Conduct which might not be defamatory if attributed to some people could be capable of defaming a well-known public figure where the publication presented it as drunken and demeaning behaviour. The court did not decide the actual meaning, since the question whether trial should be by judge or jury had not yet arisen.
3. Determination without a hearing. Practice Direction 53 para 4.1 applications are substantive and bind the trial judge. The general rule is an oral hearing in public. CPR Part 23.8(c) is an exception, requiring a high threshold before it is used.
4. An oral hearing is ordinarily important because the claimant may need to address a possible lesser defamatory meaning, the court must assess the hypothetical readership, and oral advocacy enables the judge to test whether significant contextual matters have been missed. Such applications should therefore be dealt with without a hearing only in a very limited number of cases.
5. Open justice and costs. Open justice applies to High Court business. Senior Courts Act 1981 s 67 and CPR Part 39.2 establish the general rule that hearings are public. The defendant’s applications failed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, summarily assessed.