Wissa v Associated Newspapers Ltd

In a libel claim, the claimant must identify with reasonable certainty the precise words alleged to be defamatory. Identifying an article by its title and URL is insufficient where different versions were published or the article contains extensive unrelated material. The claimant must plead the exact words complained of and the defamatory meaning attributed to them.

When assessing meaning, the court reads the publication as a whole, including explanatory or exculpatory material, and applies the perspective of the ordinary reasonable reader. A court cannot assess capability of bearing a defamatory meaning in the abstract where the claimant has not identified the particular words or version relied upon.

The claimant, a general practitioner, brought a libel claim concerning a Mail Online article about the death of a patient who had been treated by three doctors. The particulars of claim identified the article by title and URL, but quoted alleged defamatory statements that did not correspond accurately with the versions before the court.

The defendant applied under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) to strike out the claim on the grounds that the pleading disclosed no reasonable grounds and was an abuse of process. The central issues were whether the publication and words complained of had been adequately identified, whether the articles were capable of bearing the pleaded meanings, and whether any defect could be cured by amendment.

1. Pleading the words complained of. In a libel claim, the claimant must set out word for word the precise words alleged to defame him. Identification by title and URL is insufficient where the URL has hosted different versions of an article or substantial additional material. The defendant must know exactly which words it has to answer.
2. Meaning. The court must assess the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader, reading the publication as a whole. Explanatory and exculpatory material must be considered with the allegedly defamatory material. The articles were not capable of conveying that there was no rational clinical basis for the diagnosis, that the diagnosis caused the patient’s death, or that the GMC itself had concluded that the claimant’s care fell below the required standard. The relevant criticism was attributed to an independent expert, while the GMC had made no recommendation for action.
3. Amendment. The defect was capable in principle of being cured. The claimant would need to identify the particular version relied upon, plead the precise words, and, if relying on publication through NewsLookup.com, plead facts establishing both publication within the jurisdiction and the defendant’s responsibility for that publication.
4. Other matters and disposition. The racial-treatment allegations had no place in the pleaded meaning, although they might potentially be relevant to damages depending on any amended pleading. The claim was struck out. The court would hear submissions on whether, and within what period, the claimant should be permitted to apply to amend.