Al Saud & Anor v Forbes LLC & Ors

In determining the meaning of allegedly defamatory publications, the court must assess the words as a whole through the eyes of the hypothetical reasonable reader. The court should avoid strained interpretations and over-elaborate analysis. The seriousness of an allegation depends partly on the certainty with which it is conveyed. A publication may convey strong grounds for suspicion rather than a concluded allegation of wrongdoing. A claimant may select distinct defamatory meanings on which to sue. A corporate claimant must satisfy the applicable threshold of seriousness. On the facts, the publications conveyed defamatory meanings about the individual claimant, but the meanings pleaded by the company were insufficiently serious.

The claimants brought libel proceedings concerning four Forbes publications about the first claimant’s wealth, the second claimant’s share value and auditing arrangements, and the first claimant’s dealings concerning an Airbus A380. The trial concerned a preliminary issue as to the meanings borne by the words complained of.

The first claimant alleged dishonest manipulation, misleading valuations, improper replacement of auditors and default under aircraft-related contractual obligations. The second claimant alleged that the publications defamed it in England and Wales. The central issues were the level of certainty conveyed, the specificity of the allegations, the effect of the surrounding context, and whether the meanings concerning the company were sufficiently serious.

1. Meaning of the first and fourth articles. The publications conveyed strong grounds for suspecting that the first claimant had intentionally used dishonest means to increase the value of the second claimant’s shares and his own apparent net worth. They did not convey that dishonesty was certain. The surrounding material, including the share-price movements, the limited public information, the change of auditors and the claimant’s motives, formed part of the meaning.
2. Meaning of the second article. The article conveyed reasonable grounds to suspect that Ernst & Young had been replaced because it had expressed legitimate concerns about the difference between market and holding values and because the first claimant did not want further scrutiny. The article conveyed uncertainty about the figures rather than certainty that they were exaggerated.
3. Meaning of the third article. The words complained of conveyed that the first claimant deliberately caused the purchasing company to default on payments due to Airbus because he no longer wanted the aircraft, thereby proving himself an unreliable and untrustworthy debtor. That allegation was distinct from wider allegations about his business dealings or representations to Forbes.
4. Corporate claimant. The second claimant did not surmount the common-law threshold of seriousness. There was therefore no need to consider the statutory threshold under the Defamation Act 2013.
5. The meanings found in relation to the first claimant were defamatory. The meanings complained of by the second claimant were insufficiently serious to amount to defamatory allegations.