Meadows Care Ltd & Anor v Lambert & Anor

In determining meaning at a preliminary stage, the court must consider the words as a whole and give them the natural and ordinary meaning they would convey to the ordinary reasonable listener. The speaker’s intention and status are irrelevant to meaning. The court should avoid over-elaborate analysis and should not select a defamatory meaning where a non-defamatory meaning is reasonably available.

A passage criticising legislation and the operation of a care system may constitute opinion rather than allegations of fact about individual care-home operators. Where the words bear no defamatory meaning, permission to amend may be refused and the claim dismissed.

Two companies operating residential children’s care homes brought a slander claim against the leader of Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and the Council. The claim concerned remarks made at a public meeting following the Rochdale grooming convictions.

The claimants sought permission to re-amend their particulars to plead revised words. The defendants argued that the amendment was statute-barred, that the words were not defamatory, and that they were expressions of opinion. The court was asked to determine meaning, whether the words were defamatory, and whether they were fact or opinion.

1. Amendment. The revised words were spoken, or substantially similar words were spoken. The revision did not add or substitute a new claim for the purposes of Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 17.4(2). Alternatively, it arose from the same or substantially the same facts: the occasion and audience were unchanged and the gravamen of the alleged defamation remained the same. Permission could therefore have been granted if the claim had a real prospect of success.
2. Meaning. Meaning is an objective question. The court must consider the words as a whole and the impression left on the hypothetical ordinary reasonable listener. The speaker’s intention and the status or influence of the speaker are irrelevant. The court should avoid over-elaborate analysis and should not select a bad meaning where another reasonable meaning is available.
3. Fact or opinion. Applying British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2011] 1 WLR 133, the court treated the passage as an evaluation of legislative and systemic defects. It did not allege that the claimants or their staff had acted culpably, negligently, or incompetently. The criticism was directed at the system governing private care homes and the allocation of children between local authorities.
4. Result. The words did not bear any meaning defamatory of either claimant. They were expressions of opinion rather than statements of fact, and the claim had no prospect of success at trial. Permission to re-amend was refused and the claim was dismissed.