Auladin v Shaikh & Ors

In determining the meaning of words complained of in libel, the court must read the words as a whole and approximate the perspective of the hypothetical reasonable reader, having regard to the relevant context. The pleaded meaning marks the claimant’s high-water mark but does not confine the court, which may identify another meaning provided it is no more serious than the pleaded meaning. Words suggesting disagreement with a majority decision and a dignified resignation do not necessarily impute undemocratic, dictatorial or dishonest conduct. The court must assess whether the words would diminish the claimant’s reputation in the eyes of the relevant reasonable reader. If the words are not defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo, summary judgment may be entered for the defendant.

The claimant, formerly chairman and a trustee of the Muslim Community and Education Centre, brought a libel claim concerning a statement issued by the defendants, who were fellow trustees. The statement said that he had resigned after disagreeing with the outcome of a process for appointing new trustees and had backed out after the result was announced. The claimant pleaded meanings that he opposed expanding the trustees, refused to abide by a democratic process and sought to operate the mosque dictatorially. He also pleaded an innuendo that he had lied about the reason for his resignation. The issue was whether the words were capable of bearing, or actually bore, those meanings or any defamatory meaning.

1. Meaning. The judge read the words themselves before considering the parties’ submissions, seeking to approximate the position of the hypothetical reasonable reader. The surrounding context, including the audience and the statement’s references to the trustees’ sincerity, integrity and lack of personal benefit, was relevant.
2. Pleaded meanings. The pleaded meaning is the high-water mark of the possible meanings relied upon by the claimant. The court may determine meaning independently of the pleadings, provided that it does not find a meaning more serious than the meaning pleaded.
3. Natural and ordinary meaning. The statement did not convey that the claimant had behaved undemocratically or dictatorially. Resigning because he disagreed with a majority decision was not itself undemocratic. The phrase “backed out” could describe a dignified withdrawal and did not, in context, allege rejection of the democratic process or breach of an obligation.
4. The reference to a future risk of abandoning democratic procedures was hypothetical and did not criticise the claimant’s past conduct. The statement also did not make an allegation of hypocrisy.
5. Innuendo. Even readers aware of the claimant’s own explanation for his resignation would not infer that he had lied. His explanation was consistent with the statement’s account that he had backed out after the result was announced.
6. The words were not defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo. Summary judgment was therefore granted to the defendants and the claim was dismissed.