Johnston v League Publications Ltd & Ors

On a preliminary issue in a libel claim, the court determining meaning must identify the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the ordinary fair-minded reader. That reader may possess specialist knowledge where the publication has a specialist readership. Meaning is primarily a matter of impression, so the court should avoid over-analysis and artificial distinctions. The court is not confined by the meanings pleaded by the parties.

A claimant’s true innuendo may be established where a substantial proportion of readers know the relevant extrinsic facts. A defendant relying on its own innuendo must establish the necessary knowledge among all readers if it seeks a complete justification defence. The scope of that defence also depends on whether the pleaded meaning is general or confined to a specific incident.

The claimant, a former chairman of a professional rugby league club, brought libel proceedings against the publisher of a rugby league journal, a journalist and the source of two articles. The articles alleged that he had dishonestly reported a player to the police, unlawfully withheld wages, threatened the player, mismanaged the club and mistreated players and coaches.

The court was asked to determine the meanings conveyed by the articles as a preliminary issue. It also considered whether the words conveyed a true innuendo that the claimant had breached the Rugby Football League Betting Code by seeking to have a particular player selected in a match on which he had placed a bet. The court was not asked to determine the scope or merits of any justification defence.

1. The court determined the meanings conveyed by the two articles as a preliminary issue. The exercise included whether the meanings were defamatory and whether they were factual allegations or comment, but did not include determining the scope of any justification or honest-opinion defence. The approach was consistent with Cammish v Hughes [2012] EWCA Civ 1655.

2. The relevant perspective was that of the ordinary fair-minded reader. That may include specialist background knowledge where the publication is directed to a specialist readership. The judge was not confined by the pleaded meanings, applying the principles in Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157.

3. Meaning is essentially a matter of impression. Reasons must be given, but the court should avoid excessive analysis and artificial distinctions, as explained in Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 2187 (QB). The interview conveyed a general allegation of mismanagement, not merely mismanagement affecting staff morale.

4. The story conveyed allegations that the claimant knowingly lied to the police, unlawfully withheld three months’ wages, threatened unjustified fines and deportation, demanded repayment of sums connected with the player’s suspension, and behaved rudely and unprofessionally. These were defamatory factual allegations.

5. The interview conveyed general and specific defamatory allegations concerning financial mismanagement, broken promises, capricious dismissal of coaches, interference in club affairs, meanness towards players, humiliating treatment and an uncontrolled gambling habit. These allegations were also factual rather than comment.

6. The claimant’s true innuendo concerning the Betting Code was upheld. Specialist readers could reasonably be expected to possess sufficient knowledge of the rules, and a substantial proportion of readers would have known the substance of the prohibition. The pleaded meaning did not need to be amended to identify particular rule numbers.

7. A defendant is not necessarily confined to natural and ordinary meanings when pleading an innuendo for justification. However, a defendant’s own innuendo requires consideration of whether all readers knew the relevant extrinsic facts if a complete defence is sought. Knowledge among only some readers could support only a partial defence. The court also observed that the defendant’s pleaded meaning concerned one specific bet, rather than a general allegation of habitual improper betting. That issue was relevant to justification and was not finally determined.

8. The preliminary issue was completed on that basis. No ruling was made on the ultimate justification defence.