Reid v Newsquest (Midlands South) Ltd

In determining the meaning of allegedly defamatory words, the court must identify the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the ordinary reader. The publication must be read as a whole, in its context, and with proper regard to the characteristics of the hypothetical reader. The reader is neither naïve nor unduly suspicious, and the court should avoid strained interpretations and over-elaborate analysis. The publisher’s intention is irrelevant.

A court is not confined to meanings advanced by the parties. It may determine another meaning, but the relevant question is the defamatory meaning, if any. Here, reports that a landowner had shocked and upset local residents by fencing off fields previously open to public access and by notifying the local authority of an official declaration were defamatory. The articles did not, however, impute selfish or callous motives, or knowledge of the historic public use.

The claimant, owner of agricultural land in Oxfordshire, brought a libel claim against the publisher of the Oxford Mail. The claim concerned a hard-copy article, an original online article and an amended online article reporting a dispute between local residents and the claimant about fencing and public access to fields.

The claimant alleged that the publications portrayed him as selfishly and callously overriding established local interests and seeking to limit or extinguish public rights of way. The defendant denied those meanings and advanced a pleaded truth defence in the alternative. Following a direction for trial of a preliminary issue, the court had to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of each publication and, in particular, whether the words bore a defamatory meaning.

1. Applicable principles. The court’s task was to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the publications, namely the meaning they would bear to the ordinary reader. The governing principles included reasonableness, reading the article as a whole, avoiding over-elaborate analysis, disregarding the publisher’s intention, and excluding meanings requiring strained or unreasonable interpretation. Context and the circumstances of publication were relevant, although the local-newspaper setting added little in this case. No evidence other than the publications themselves was admissible on meaning.
2. Permissible meaning. The court was not bound to choose between the meanings advanced by the parties. It could identify another meaning. The relevant question was the defamatory meaning, if any, because a non-defamatory meaning would not determine the outcome of the libel claim.
3. Application. The articles were not a dispassionate report. Their language presented the claimant’s actions as shocking and as causing considerable upset to local residents. The defamatory sting was not, however, that he had acted selfishly or callously. The publications described what he had done, not his motives, and did not convey that he knew, or ought to have known, of the historic use of the fields.
4. Meaning and result. Each publication bore the meaning that, following his purchase of land, the claimant had shocked and considerably upset a substantial number of local residents by, without warning, fencing off fields previously open to public access where families had played and picnicked for generations, and by sending the local authority an official declaration intended to limit or extinguish public use of parts of the land. The hard-copy, original online and amended online articles bore the same meaning.