Poulter v Times Newspapers Ltd

Meaning in a libel publication is determined from the overall impact of the words in context, as understood by the ordinary, reasonable reader. Sufficiently connected print articles in one publication must be read together. Online related links do not automatically form one publication; the question depends on context and what the ordinary reader would reasonably be taken to read. Formulaic references to allegations, denials or a pending investigation do not necessarily reduce an imputation of guilt. The substance and balance of the publication control. Different authors may have distinct responsibilities, but the publisher’s liability is assessed by reference to the words it published.

Daniel Poulter MP brought a libel claim against Times Newspapers Ltd concerning print and online versions of two articles about allegations that he had sexually assaulted female MPs. The Claimant pleaded separate meanings for the Wheeler and Bridgen Articles. The Defendant contended that the articles should be read together and bore a lower meaning concerning grounds for investigation. The claim was issued without a defence having been served, and Master Gidden ordered a trial of meaning as a preliminary issue. The central questions were whether the print and online articles constituted single publications and what meaning each publication conveyed.

The court determined the preliminary issues of meaning.

1. Print publications. Because the Claimant complained of words from both articles, the ordinary, reasonable reader had to read them together in context. Applying the principle in Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65, and the approach in Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EMLR 20, the print articles were sufficiently closely connected to constitute one publication. They therefore had a single natural and ordinary meaning.
2. Online publications. There is no rigid rule that readers are taken to follow every hyperlink. The question is fact-sensitive and depends on context, including the reader’s familiarity with the subject, level of interest, any direction to read linked material, and whether the article can be understood without following the link. The guidance in Falter v Altzmon [2018] EWHC 1728 QB and Monroe v Hopkins [2017] 4 WLR 68 was applied. Budu v BBC [2010] EWHC 616 (QB) was treated as fact-specific. The related links did not make the online articles a single publication, so each online article was assessed separately.
3. Meaning. Meaning is an impressionistic assessment of the overall impact and lasting impression on the ordinary, reasonable reader. The established approach in Brown v Bower [2017] 4 WLR 197, including the repetition rule, was applied. Repeated use of terms such as alleged, a denial, or reference to a future investigation did not prevent the publications conveying guilt where their overall presentation was one-sided and treated the allegations as credible.
4. The print publication and the online Bridgen Article conveyed that the Claimant was guilty of sexual assault by putting his hand up the skirts of three female MPs. The online Wheeler Article conveyed that there were reasonable grounds to suspect him of that conduct. The court did not need to determine whether the conduct was criminal. The preliminary meanings were accordingly determined without finally deciding liability.

The claim was issued in the High Court. No defence had been served by consent. Master Gidden ordered the trial of meaning as a preliminary issue. The present judgment determined that issue at first instance.