Horan v Express Newspapers

On an application under CPR Part 53 PD 4.1(1), the court decides only whether the words are capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meaning. It does not determine their actual meaning or issues such as serious harm without the necessary evidence.

The words must be assessed as a whole by reference to the hypothetical reasonable reader. The bane and any antidote must be considered together, but there is no rule that an antidote necessarily removes the defamatory sting. A publication may be capable of conveying different levels of meaning, including an allegation, reasonable grounds for suspicion, or reasonable grounds for investigation. Reporting rumours does not establish a defence based merely on the truth of the rumours.

Niall Horan brought a libel claim concerning Daily Star print and online articles which showed him with Justin Bieber near a glass pipe. He alleged that the publications conveyed that, during an evening with Justin Bieber and Cody Simpson, he had used hard drugs, namely crystal meth or crack.

Express Newspapers applied under CPR Part 53 PD 4.1(1) for a ruling that the words were incapable of bearing that meaning and were not defamatory. The central issue was whether the publications were capable of bearing the pleaded meaning, rather than what meaning they actually conveyed.

1. The application was confined to capability. The court could not determine actual meaning or issues under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 without the evidence and disclosure required for those preliminary issues. The application was therefore not to be treated as a combined meaning and serious-harm application.

2. The governing approach was that of the reasonable reader. The publication had to be read as a whole, including any apparent bane and antidote. The court rejected any absolute rule that an antidote must, or can never, remove the defamatory sting. That was a matter of impression for the hypothetical reasonable reader.

3. The articles were capable of conveying that Mr Horan had used hard drugs, specifically crystal meth or crack. The relevant features included the headline referring to a drug storm, repeated references to a Breaking Bad-style drugs pipe, the description of Mr Horan as staring blankly, references to rumours of hard-drug use, and the statement that a reader was paying for his drugs. The qualification that there was no suggestion that the allegation was true did not necessarily remove the sting.

4. The same conclusion applied to the online articles, although their presentation differed and they contained additional references to cannabis. The references to cannabis concerned Cody Simpson and did not prevent the pleaded meaning relating to Mr Horan from being capable of arising.

5. The articles were also capable of conveying Chase level 2 and level 3 meanings: that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr Horan had used hard drugs, or reasonable grounds to investigate whether he had done so. Those meanings were capable of being defamatory. The application was dismissed.