Building Register Ltd v Weston & Anor

Meaning in defamation proceedings is determined by the broad impression made on the hypothetical reasonable reader, viewed from the standpoint of a layman and taking the publication as a whole. Over-elaborate analysis and strained meanings should be avoided. A statement is comment where it is recognisable as comment and the facts on which it is based are indicated, at least generally. The distinction depends on context. Comment must be based on facts that are true or protected by privilege. A statement is defamatory only if it crosses the threshold of seriousness and would adversely affect the claimant in the estimation of reasonable people. Applying those principles, allegations that the claimant duped or mis-sold to the defendants, acted unreasonably, or used bullying and embellished sales tactics were comments; allegations concerning service coverage and a lie about offices were statements of fact.

Building Register Limited brought a libel claim against Mark Weston and All Clean Limited concerning a website criticising the claimant’s sales practices, contractual renewal provisions and services. The defendants admitted publication but disputed defamatory meaning and pleaded truth and, alternatively, honest comment.

The court was directed to determine preliminary issues under an order of Master Eastman: the meaning of the words complained of, and whether the allegations were statements of fact or expressions of opinion. The judgment also recorded that the proceedings would continue after the preliminary ruling, with the parties able to amend their positions on justification and comment.

1. Meaning. The court applied the approach stated in Waterson v Lloyd [2013] EWCA Civ 136 and Jeynes v News Magazines Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 130. Meaning is a question for the court. It is assessed by the hypothetical reasonable reader, who is not naïve or unduly suspicious. The publication must be read as a whole, avoiding over-elaborate analysis and strained interpretations.
2. The website conveyed six meanings: that the claimant duped the defendants into placing an online order; initially failed to provide the promised national coverage; lied about having six offices; unreasonably insisted on payment under an automatic renewal clause despite providing no benefit; mis-sold a service which it knew did not deliver promised substantial benefits; and used heavy, embellished sales tactics followed by bullying tactics against small organisations.
3. Defamatory meaning. Applying the principles in Skuse v Granada Television Limited [1996] EMLR 278 and Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Limited [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB), all six meanings were defamatory. The allegation about inadequate coverage crossed the threshold of seriousness in the context of the website.
4. Fact or comment. The court applied the guidance in Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53, including the requirement that comment be recognisable as comment and indicate the facts on which it is based. The meanings concerning the online order, automatic renewal, mis-selling and sales tactics were comments. The meanings concerning the coverage provided and the alleged lie about six offices were statements of fact. The comment meanings remained subject to proof of the underlying facts or privilege.
5. The meanings were determined under paragraph 25 of the judgment. The parties were directed, unless the action was compromised, to apply by 15 April 2014 for a case management conference.

This was a first-instance preliminary-issues ruling. The judgment recorded earlier case-management orders by Master Eastman and referred to a separate Maidstone County Court judgment in related proceedings, but no appeal from that decision was determined in this judgment.