Fox v Boulter

In a defamation meaning application, the court must determine the single meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer or reader, reading the publication as a whole and avoiding strained analysis. General knowledge means matters of universal notoriety, not facts requiring deliberate research or recollection. An innuendo meaning may be considered on the assumption that at least one publishee knew the gist of the pleaded extrinsic facts. Reluctance to give evidence is not generally defamatory, but it may be defamatory to allege that a person with important evidence capable of exonerating someone accused of serious misconduct failed to come forward. A publication must also satisfy the threshold of seriousness. A judge may reconsider a reserved decision before the order giving effect to it is drawn up and perfected.

The claimant, a Member of Parliament and former Secretary of State for Defence, brought a defamation claim concerning a Sky News broadcast and a longer article published on the Sky News website. The defendant said that the claimant and another person should give evidence in legal proceedings and might be compelled to attend if they did not do so voluntarily.

The claimant alleged that the words meant he had acted reprehensibly by failing to come forward publicly to debunk serious allegations against the defendant. The court determined, as a preliminary issue, the natural and ordinary meaning and the pleaded innuendo meaning of the broadcast and website publication.

1. The court applied the principles in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130. Meaning is governed by reasonableness. The publication must be read as a whole, including any relevant antidote, and the court must avoid over-elaborate analysis. The claimant’s pleaded meaning represents the maximum defamatory sting.
2. General knowledge means matters of universal notoriety. Facts requiring assiduous reading and recollection of a story published weeks or months earlier cannot ordinarily be used to establish natural and ordinary meaning. For an innuendo meaning, however, it was appropriate at this preliminary stage to infer that at least one viewer or reader knew and recollected the gist of the pleaded extrinsic facts.
3. The broadcast, whether considered for natural and ordinary meaning or by reference to the pleaded facts, did not convey a defamatory meaning. Its overall impression concerned questions about the sharing of sensitive information. The claim therefore failed in relation to the broadcast.
4. The website article conveyed that the claimant could give evidence capable of debunking serious allegations against the defendant, had not done so, doubtedly was unwilling to attend voluntarily, and would be compelled to attend if necessary. In context, that alleged reprehensible conduct and was plainly defamatory. The meaning was reinforced for readers aware that the allegations concerned blackmail. The claim succeeded on meaning in relation to the website article.
5. The meaning was sufficiently serious under Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1985. The court also held, applying Re L & B (Children) [2013] 2 All ER 294, that a judge may reconsider a decision before the order giving effect to it is drawn up and perfected, although the proposed amendment to the draft meaning was refused.