Cruddas v Calvert & Ors

In libel, meaning is determined by applying the reasonable-reader test to the publication as a whole. The publisher’s intention is irrelevant. In malicious falsehood, the single-meaning rule does not apply: all meanings which reasonable readers could understand may proceed. Readers’ evidence is not automatically admissible and may be excluded where it would not materially assist the court or would create disproportionate cost and complication. A pleaded meaning alleging criminal conduct is not defective merely because it uses ordinary language rather than the name of a specific offence.

The claimant brought libel and malicious falsehood claims concerning three Sunday Times articles and related website material arising from an undercover meeting. He alleged meanings of corruption and breaches of electoral law. The defendants advanced alternative meanings and sought to justify them.

The action was listed for trial. After the defendants agreed to trial by judge alone, the court determined meaning as a preliminary issue. The court also considered whether readers’ evidence was admissible and whether paragraph 8 of the amended Defence should be struck out.

1. Meaning in libel. Applying Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130, the articles were assessed as a whole for the hypothetical reasonable Sunday Times reader. They conveyed the claimant’s three pleaded meanings: corruption, knowledge that the proposed donations were unlawful foreign donations, and willingness to use deceptive devices to conceal their source. The meanings were plainly defamatory.
2. A pleaded meaning alleging criminal conduct is not defective merely because it does not identify a specific offence or use current statutory terminology. The meaning conveyed by the articles connoted criminal conduct, notwithstanding the argument based on the Bribery Act 2010.
3. Meaning in malicious falsehood. Following Ajinomoto v ASDA [2011] QB 497, the single-meaning rule does not apply. Meanings which reasonable readers could understand may proceed. The claimant’s pleaded meanings and the defendants’ alternative meanings fell within that range, subject to the conclusion that the proposed channelling of funds through the reporters conveyed a suggested breach of electoral law, not merely a breach of its spirit.
4. Readers’ evidence is not automatically inadmissible, but may be controlled or excluded under CPR 32.1 and the overriding objective. In this case the articles were long and detailed, the proposed readers included potentially partisan persons, and there was no evidence that they had read the articles in full. The evidence would not materially assist the court and was excluded.
5. The defendants’ paragraph 8 defence was logically defective. The articles contained the defendants’ descriptions and interpretations as well as selected quotations from the meeting, so proving the quotations accurate could not establish the truth of the pleaded meaning. Paragraph 8 of the amended Defence was struck out.

The preliminary meaning issues were determined and the strike-out order made.

The judgment was a first-instance decision. It records an earlier order by Nicol J on amendment applications in [2013] EWHC 1096 (QB), but no appeal is described.