Bokova v Associated Newspapers Ltd

In determining the meaning of allegedly defamatory words, the court must assess the broad impression conveyed to the hypothetical reasonable reader by the publication read as a whole. The exercise is governed by reasonableness and context, and avoids over-elaborate linguistic analysis. Chase levels assist the inquiry but are not a rigid framework. A publication may convey reasonable grounds to suspect wrongdoing without imputing guilt, but the precise meaning depends on the words and context. A headline must be read with the article. The court may reach its own conclusion on meaning and is not confined to the meanings advanced by the parties.

The claimant, then Director-General of UNESCO and a candidate for appointment as United Nations Secretary-General, brought a libel claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail Online. The publications concerned, among other matters, the appointment of a deputy, alleged inaccuracies in the claimant’s CV, statements about visits to Russia, family property purchases and UNESCO’s naming of an international prize.

The claimant applied for determination of meaning as a preliminary issue, together with applications concerning the defence and remedies. The court determined the meanings of both publications. The central issues were whether the articles conveyed guilt, reasonable grounds to suspect wrongdoing, or lesser meanings.

1. Preliminary issue and procedure. Parties should obtain an order directing a preliminary issue. Active case-management powers enable the court to decide whether such a hearing is appropriate and to require costs budgets. The preliminary issue was sensible, but the strike-out and judgment applications were adjourned because they depended on the meanings determined.
2. Applicable principles. Meaning is assessed from the viewpoint of the layman and by the broad impression made by the words taken as a whole. The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naïve or unduly suspicious, may read between the lines and indulge in some loose thinking, but will not select a defamatory meaning where another reasonable meaning is available. The publisher’s intention is irrelevant. The court must consider context and any headline together with the text.
3. Chase levels. The distinctions between imputing commission of an act, reasonable grounds to suspect its commission, and grounds for investigating it are useful but are not a straightjacket. Everything depends on reasonableness, context and the words used. The online and print articles conveyed a Chase level 2 meaning of reasonable grounds to suspect fraud concerning the appointment of Ana Luiza Thompson-Flores. The references to an investigation and the investigators’ conclusion that there was a case for a comprehensive investigation carried the meaning beyond grounds merely to investigate, but did not impute guilt.
4. Online article. The article conveyed that the claimant had made a dishonest false statement in her CV by claiming to have been Bulgaria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1995 to 1997. It also conveyed that she was party to making dishonest false statements about the number of her visits to Russia. The article did not convey that she was a spy or puppet of President Putin, or that she secretly reported UNESCO board matters to the Russian authorities. It conveyed reasonable grounds to suspect that she had used tainted monies to purchase two Manhattan apartments and assist her son with repayment of a mortgage. It also conveyed that she was personally responsible, as Director-General, for bringing UNESCO into disrepute by naming an international prize after Teodoro Obian Nguema.
5. Orders. The meanings of the online article were declared in those terms. The Daily Mail article conveyed only the reasonable-grounds-to-suspect-fraud meaning concerning the appointment.

First-instance determination of meaning as a preliminary issue. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.