Falter v Altzmon

In determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words complained of in a libel claim, the court must adopt a reasonable, impressionistic and non-technical approach. The publication must be read as a whole through the eyes of the hypothetical reasonable reader, without over-analysis or strained interpretation.

For online publications, a hyperlink is not automatically treated as having been followed. Whether linked material forms part of the context depends on how it is presented, its connection with the publication and what the ordinary reasonable reader would be likely to do.

The claimant, chairman of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, brought libel proceedings against the defendant, a jazz musician and author, concerning an article published on the defendant’s website. The article accused the claimant of fabricating and exaggerating anti-Semitic incidents to obtain funding and income, and of hypocrisy.

The trial concerned meaning as a preliminary issue, ordered by Deputy Master Sullivan on 19 April 2018. The claimant relied on a more serious meaning, including deliberate encouragement of anti-Semitism and fraud against British taxpayers. The defendant contended for a narrower meaning concerning dishonest fabrication, characterisation and exaggeration. The central issues were the article’s natural and ordinary meaning and the relevance of an embedded Sky News interview.

1. Preliminary issue. The court determined the natural and ordinary meaning of the article. No final merits judgment of the libel claim was made.
2. Meaning principles. The court applied the principles summarised in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130 and supplemented by Skuse v Granada Television [1996] EMLR 278. The governing principle was reasonableness. The article had to be read as a whole by the hypothetical reasonable reader, without over-analysis, undue suspicion or a strained interpretation.
3. Hyperlinked material. There was no hard and fast rule that a hyperlink embedded in an online publication was treated as read by the ordinary reasonable reader. The court had to assess the context, including the link’s prominence and purpose, its connection with the publication and the likely behaviour of the readership. The guidance in Charleston & Smith v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65 and Monroe v Hopkins [2017] 4 WLR 68 was considered. The judge did not need to determine the general hyperlink issue because the embedded interview did not materially alter the meaning.
4. Meaning found. The article meant that the claimant dishonestly fabricated anti-Semitic incidents, deliberately exaggerated the prevalence of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic activity, including by treating legitimate criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and thereby risked increasing anti-Semitism. It conveyed that he did so to obtain funds for the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and income for himself, that the funds were obtained by fraud, and that he was hypocritical. The hypocrisy lay in publicly campaigning against anti-Semitism while accepting its continued prevalence, rather than in wishing Jews to be hated.